Tom,

Interesting review article.  Interesting to me that moderns are stuck on the ‘white man’s oppression’ as if it is something new.  As Dr. Sanner argued decades ago, those stuck in the present, forget the lessons of history.  Historians   with a long term view, often note that power has changed ‘color’ numerous times over the span of human history…  The constant appears to be the assimilation of power in the hands of a few…  Not sure ‘the white man’ is unique in their abuse of power…  And yes, those without power seem to want it…and partner with those willing to share it.  No shocker there…  :o)  Funny how little things change…  Can’t help but wonder if Jesus had something other than the redistribution of power and wealth in mind…

When I was in Haiti I met my friend Jonas who was a very interesting character. He was able to travel to New York quite a few times and developed an intense level of uniformity of ethnicity. He was obsessed with painting every room in his house white and elaborated to me multiple times that he loved white way more than black. He was caught up with American consumerism after only being in America every now and then. Just because of the contrast he saw in his native culture and American culture he saw “white as right” because of the level of prosperity in each culture. It saddened me to hear him say such things, but he had definitely be shaped by symbols and uniformity of ethnicity due only to the fact that he had seen such a contrast in cultures.

It is hard to look at humanities past and not see that there is something off about our behavior. Throughout history those with the power have propagated ideas that they are in some way fundamentally better than others. I wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong with us that we oppress those with less power than us. It almost seems to be the human default to promote oneself as better than others. It takes a very conscious effort by one in order to not place differing values on male/female or ethnic backgrounds. Perhaps this has something to do with the fallen nature of creation…

I’m not sure I see the connection between modernism and Tonica’s predicament. 

As someone who studies recent politics and philosophy, I can see how someone like Heidegger might interpret the inauthenticity of all three strands here (ecological, feminist, and ethnic), but I am not sure that they are “modern” phenomena.  I do see the dichotomy; “modernism” tacitly defines human identity as male, white, and universal, where “postmodernism” tries to find each identlty in its own place and unobscured. 

Intelectually, I can understand the connections, but in terms of how those problems are fixed or faced there seems to be a gap.  Yes, I can interpret Derrida to these situations, but can I make a genuine difference without giving up or contradicting these very distant methods?  It seems like a contradiction in terms to assume that all cultures have experienced “modernism” in the same way; African “modernism” is still tribalism with ingrained systems of patronage, fought with second-hand soviet spears. 

It seems difficult to be postmodern (or encourage postmodernity) in pre-or-nonmodern conditions.  Furthermore it seems difficult to ask a different society to embrace a “postmodern” ethic without becoming an imperial “modernist”.

I will wait to read your final post to see where you are going with this

It does not take a new school of theological and social thought to realize that oppression of marginalized people can be eradicated with love and kindness. Ethics for human life begins with love for god and all that he made.

I can agree with Blake, I spent a semester in Uganda and white is definitely better. I think this is terrible, and not how God views the world. I agree with Liberation Postmodernists that this barrier needs to be broken. It is oppressive to groups of people, and anything that oppresses people oppresses God.  Along the same lines, I can understand how referring to God as a man can be harmful for some women who have been neglected their whole life or abused by men.  However, I think this issue will be much harder for Christians to overcome because of the “heresy” of God not being a “Father”. I do not believe that God is a man or a woman. Besides it being weird and not traditional, I dont see why some could not refer to God as a she if it helped them to experience God in their life. We must ask ourselves, Does God care whether God is referred to as a he or a she?

Andrew,

Forgive me for being simplistic, but the connection between these social ills (female oppression, over consumption, etc…) seems clear.  Modernism (and, to an extent, pre-modernism) both fostered an attitude of certainty.  Thus, whatever happened to be the cultural norm at the time became “truth” and modernism embraced it.  In the instance of female subordination, for example, a modern mindset allowed men to claim that their behavior was “true” in some sense.  Men and women were inherently different, and that was just the way it was.

Post-modernism swings the power pendulum in the other direction by questioning the “truth"s of modernism and pre-modernism.  It levels the playing field.  That’s the connection; post-modernism empowers the oppressed by questioning the “truth"s that oppressed them.

Growing up in middle class America one is usually not introduced to other cultural theological view points. I have heard a little bit about liberationist postmodernism from friends abroad. They have found that people in oppressed countries and situations tend to follow this theology more so than the “white man’s” theology. It is interesting how religion/theology changes over time and between cultures, each group more inclined to believe a version that is more directly applicable to where they have been placed in this world. I definitely think that the western theologies have been used to oppress people as well as the world that we all live in. Following those ideals has created progress for few, but at the cost of many more being kept in slavery. I would like to hear more on the application of liberationist postmodernism theology and where it would take humanity as a whole.

Looking through history I can see how one might think that life is on a trajectory toward a better life and better values. On the other hand, I can also see how in many ways life has not changed. I think that it is safe to say that human condition is still pretty bad.

I think it is unfair to attribute this to modernism. I think it would be more accurate to label this to human nature. I believe that people are basically bad, and sadly they will continue to be basically bad even into the postmodern age.

One struggle I have with liberation theology as it plays out has to do with our human nature of playing tit for tat.  The liberation of individuals, people groups, genders and as is noted in the essay above is however necessary and just.  As Christians we bear the obligation via the scripture and moreover the fullness of the spirit to love the least of these, while we have an obligation that we are bound to our motivation for the genuine expression of grace, humility, compassion must be born of our love for God and then our love for others.  I believe that true liberation will never be present until we learn to love others before ourselves, that will then translate into not only the desire to free the oppressed but also a desire to see the oppressors freed as well.

I can’t help but wonder if all of these are really “new” ways of thinking.

Late in the blog, you write about the God who sides with the broken and marginalized.  This is not new - Catholic theologians have written often of God’s “preferential option for the poor.”  Scripture itself tells of God’s overwhelming concern for the oppressed and the outsider.

It is not new, but it is new to moderns, that is, we Christians who believe that our power and might is a sign that God is with us.

In the end, what I love about postmodernity is that it calls us both forward and backward.  Forward to a bright new future and backward to the truths that we have always known.

jB

The above blog made me think beyond the gender issues that were raised.  You mentioned in the article that “postmodern feminist ways of knowing emphasize community.” If community is important than perhaps the inclusive language debate should also be framed in that context as well.  Just as language can show privilege towards a certain gender, it can also show privilege of the individual.  How much of our language uses personal pronouns, which plays to the self-centered culture we live in and oppresses the importance of community.  What about changing our language in such a way that it emphasizes community spiritual growth (the body) not individual growth.

Music is a great example of present mindsets so I offer as an example this Chris Tomlin song (with my additions): Where you go, I’ll (we’ll) go, where you stay, I’ll (we’ll) stay, when you move, I’ll (we’ll) move, I (we) will follow…

Will true liberation of the individual, regardless of the gender, ever come as long as we are set on loving the individual more than the community? Postmodern feminist have raised legitimate concerns about how culture develops oppressive language and I suggest the concerns go beyond gender issues.

True love will eradicate all of sin and the variety of selfishness sin breeds in us all individually and collectively.  Love and sin cannot co-exist.  All social injustices and oppression of every sort comes from a selfish perspective gaining more ground than a surrendered heart to God’s perfect love.  Hence, the reality of our lives today in this world is that there is a battlefield, and the battle is being waged in our hearts, for our hearts.

I appreciate this article, because it highlights specific areas where God’s TRUE LOVE has not been the foundation for the actions by His people today and throughout history.  There is not a single person or organization of people that God loves more than the other.  Making people aware of these issues is the first step.  Allowing God’s power through the Holy Spirit to call us into action is theology that will ultimately “offer hope.”

We all have unique experiences that aid in knowing God.  In this blog post, you mentioned how women grasp certain truths from pregnancy and childbearing as a type of embodied knowing.  As a woman who has not ever been pregnant or had children, I am curious and desire to learn what those embodied truths are.  A mindset that is open to explore and listen to the experiences of others is postmodernism at its best.  It is recognition that we do not have all the answers, and even the answers we think we have can be expanded and improved upon.

Postmodern feminist theology, for example, is suggesting that we expand our understanding of who God is to include a view from the feminine dimension.  Instead of a focus on our differences in an exclusionary way, we are invited to examine how we all can have a bigger, better, more full picture of God and of life through inclusion.  This can be liberating for all of us.

“Mother God” is not a popular salutation to begin prayer with. God is most commonly referred to as Father or in other masculine terms. To pronounce God as a Mother or by using feminine terms would be considered offensive by some sects of Christianity. Yet ascribing God with only one of the human genders, robs God of God’s ability to relate to all of creation.

Over the last few years, describing God as gender neutral has become very important to me. I am not completely past using male terms when talking about God, but I have become guarded against speaking of God solely as male. In order to be advocates for all people, and in order for God to be the God of all people, we must not pigeon hole God exclusively to any human classifications.

It is so fascinating to me that one can become immune to their own lens. People have the tendency to maintain and defend the lens they see the world through. Sadly though - one’s lens can play tricks on them - making one blind to others.

As I read this article I am struck by my lack of sympathy for those who have been oppressed by a world-system that “supports” me. By this I mean that I am often times blind to those who are oppressed by their skin color, culture, and sex. I become so comfortable being comfortable that I resist seeing through the lenses of those who are “different” than myself.

As I continue to take steps into the future - there is a need for the ability to see through various lenses. This is especially true in the way other people experience God. Each person experiences God is a unique way. So there is a need for me to be understanding of these various ways.

Becoming comfortable with one’s own lens is not wrong. But when this comfort disables one from seeing others the comfortable person is walking a dangerous road.

Reading this post made me start thinking about many things, among them was this idea that the world, for the most part, has been stuck in this space between modernism and post-modernism. It seems that we are standing on the State line with one foot in each state and are just standing there and taking pictures. I think it is easy to observe our need to change, but so much harder to embrace that change in such a way that it really changes things.
As a child of 60’s and 70”s I have always grown up with a more inclusive attitude. I have never considered one person better than the other. However, I am reminded how subtle some discrimination can be. I also think that even though I was raised in a more liberal generation, there still are nuances of modernism that need to be weeded out of my thinking. Women’s rights, the environment, even cultural differences have for the most part been run through this modern window. It’s hard to break old habits, but love requires, or even demands a change.
Tom, this blog made me think about the real need to take what you have written very seriously. I consider myself a post-modern, but there are times when I say, “Do I really practice what I believe, or do I believe what I really practice.” I am not taking about my faith here, but I am talking about keeping my feet in the post-modern approach to what I believe. I think that the only way that we will ever get to a space that is completely all inclusive, is if we and our fellow human beings are constantly having our paradigms challenged by those who are not satisfied to live in a modern world.

One thing that remains an interesting point to me about anything post-modern is that it is still a reaction to everything modern.  Post-modernity has yet to really find its philosophical footing as something more than a reaction to what has come before it.

It remains a critique of modernity, which is important on some levels, but doesn’t seem to offer anything really new.  It just creatively blends old material and captures it with new (and sometimes confusing) language.

The name of the umbrella philosophy reviewed above is a perfect example: “liberationist postmodernism.”  This flavor of worldview necessarily depends upon the ideas of liberation theology and modern philosophy.  They are reactions for and against certain aspects of those mental constructs.

But perhaps this is one of the things that defines theology and philosophy most - that which has come before.  Perhaps all theology and philosophy is more of a reaction to what’s gone before than we often acknowledge.

At what point, though, do people cease to deconstruct that which has come before and begin to construct something genuinely new?

I find it interesting that it seems to have taken so many generations for some to conclude that “God is neither male or female” or “God is not white” and yet is considered “White man’s God” or to conclude that “God is green”.
I’ve always observed Jesus as the first and greatest liberator of women. He used women in his ministry. Women were the first to proclaim “He is risen”. I have always beleived Jesus was the greatest supporter of women in the work of the Kingdom.
God is non-racial. If all are created in “his image” then wouldn’t that make God all colors? Although they are portayed as white; I’m sure Adam and Eve were not white based on where they were created. God is all colors.
God created this earth. We should take care of it because of that reason alone. It’s the ultimate respect for God for us to care for HIS creation. God loves all creation,  including the planet made for us to exhist on. Although one must be careful that caring for earth does not turn into worship of the creation rather than the Creator. God is green. We should be too….. just within reason. Gender, race, ecology…..it’s all about love, respect and acceptance.

I don’t know that oppression and abuse of power stem from “modernism”.  For sure, there are modern ideologies (consumerism, racism, all the other “isms”) that result in oppression.  However, the deeper problems might be selfishness and power; problems of the heart rather than problems of a cultural framework.  It is in post-modernism that some of the critiques of modernism come.  This is fitting because it comes “post” (after) modernism.  I’m sure that post-postmodernism will be able to see all the areas postmodernism managed to support oppression.  The problem of power has been plaguing humanity for a long time and post-modernism might not fix it.

So what about Tonica? I can’t imagine anyone saying that she doesn’t matter. I would like to see how we can examine these theologies in the real world.  For one to believe in our time does not necessarily mean that the belief will cause that one to act differently.

I think a revisionist postmodernism could be very helpful to any liberationist if it makes practical sense and not just theoretical. I am continually surprised by the wisdom found in our diversity.  I live in Africa and my mentor is a Jewish Frenchman.  My life is rich in this way, but if a revisionist postmodernism can not be practical, is it really of any use?  Would Tonica care about something that sounds better to a group of theologians half a world away? Someone like Tonica may just be willing to accept a savior.  She may not care if he is white, male, or even human.

I can definitely see the shortcomings in the post-modern mindset especially when it comes to deconstruction.  If this is the end goal (to “level the playing field”), then I see it as a complete disaster.  But I think that deconstruction is a part of something much bigger.

Obviously, we need to critique what has come before.  I see that the modern church and modernism has had its share of mistakes, but it would be a colossal failure for the post-modern movement to move forward thinking that by identifying those mistakes, it has done it’s job.  The post-modern movement is not the judge of the modern world, but instead, we spring from it with a new opportunity to call people toward Christ.

We must acknowledge the shortcomings of our movement as well.  This is what being a part of something bigger is about.  We have the opportunity to deconstruct, not for its sake, but for the sake of seeking Truth and calling everyone to a truer reality (just as the modern movement did to the generations before).  If it is possible, maybe we can see modernity and post-modernity as they are.  Sure, the are things to pick at and even more, there are things that the modern world simply messed up.  But we will too.  And hopefully our children and their children will take what we did right and what we messed up and call their generations to a truer, more whole, more restored condition led by Christ through the Holy Spirit.

I believe that combining the “wisdom of the past and the emerging work of the Spirit today” is desperately needed as we work out these issues.  There has to be some sort of balance of acknowledging God’s Truth as found in scripture and seeking the difference between the historical culture and today.  I believe as we walk closer to the Lord in our own salvation and sanctification we are more aware of the heart of God and see things differently than we already do.  May that day quickly come Lord.

One phrase in this article keeps me coming back and turning it over in my mind: “Her (Tonica’s) village work dried up as government resources went toward obtaining advanced technology.” This feels like the essence of what happens when progress “for the greater good” does not take into consideration “the least of these”.
It is important to realize that not all oppression is the result of evil intentions; a great deal of oppression is the result of being focused on an agenda - even a good agenda - to the exclusion of the voiceless and powerless. Liberation Postmodernism encourages us not to speak for the voiceless, but to listen to them speak for themselves; it encourages us not to “protect” the powerless, but to give them a seat at the table.

Sure.  Modernism is flawed and we have the ability, having been born into a time period where we can look back on it, to find the faults.  I wonder, however, if this is the only goal deconstruction.

I do see a pressing need to deconstruct the modern mindset and its outcomes.  We have much to do in the way of breaking down some strongholds in the minds of Christians and non-christians alike. 

But I do not think that deconstruction is an end in and of itself. 

The post-modern mindset sometimes finds its value in “leveling the playing field” by tearing down the modern plight.  But I actually think that if this is our objective, we will find ourselves doing nothing to redeem what our parents and grandparents tried to accomplish and actually further the issues facing us as a race and as a part of Creation. 

Deconstruction is a part of what we need, however.  As we ask the questions that the modern world refused to ask and as we step into faith where they found fear, we will find that there is ample opportunity to build on the redemption that they found in Christ.

It isn’t that modernity got it all wrong.  Its that they missed some things and seriously messed some things up.  And as we deconstruct, we will find those things.  But we will also find things that are so very whole that we need to build on.  I think that the foundations of holiness will be a part of that.

But as we deconstruct, the hope is that we won’t be tearing down, but instead building on what has come before.  We WILL need to change some things.  Certainly the three aspects of postmodernism addressed above will need attention.  But I praise God for those Moderns who found a way in their humanness and context to continue to share the good news as they were able to. 

And even though much of it may have gotten stale, I am grateful that God got to me through them and that as I make my mistakes and we make ours together as post-moderns, we will add to what has come before and, by the grace of God, will pass down a better theology, a more redeemed world, and most importantly, lives remembered by their connection to God through the Holy Spirit and marked by love.

I am in agreement that there must be new avenues to answer those with a postmodern mindset.  Yet, I’m not completely sold on the idea that ruin of the environment, mistreatment of women and of minorities is for modernity alone.  The case for bias against the term modernity may be strengthened by seeing in the article the inclusion of period’s before it labeled as “premodernity” instead of Dark ages, early Christianity, and prior ages. 

This does not decrease the need for change however.  There is real suffering and I’ve experienced this postmodern response to issues in my own military ministry as well.

I appreciate this article for introducing me to new theories of postmodernism.  I believe that God has the attributes of a woman.  I am made in His image, but for me the thought of God must be authoritative.  For me this is a masculine being.  It is very difficult for me to see woman not accepting God because God has masculine traits.  I believe that if a woman’s relationship with men (father figure) are healthy, her idea of God will be healthy.

I do have to say I felt some conviction when it came to the discussion of ecological postmodernism.  I need to be more aware of the needs of our ecology and the care of it.  God did create it, what am I doing to keep it.  I do not believe humans are equal with the earth for we have a soul.  God created it and as a human I should care for it, but I do not believe it is the deciding factor of my salvation.

I think sometimes we spend wasted time on the subject of “postmodernism/modernism.” I can’t imagine someone like Tonica saying to herself, “if the world had more of a postmodern point-of-view, my situation would be vastly improved.” In my opinion, postmodernists passing judgement (largely uncited and generalized) on modernism takes us a grand step AWAY from what can make a difference for Tonica - the true love of Christ.

I am very much looking forward to hearing your revisionist postmodernism thoughts, Dr. O, because there seems a great void in postmodernism as it pertains to Jesus and the love He longs for us to live in and share. Perhaps it is true that modernists missed the boat, but I have yet to see proof that postmodernism has found it.

There were three sentences in the above blog that stood out as if they were in large bold print.
“God is not male.”
”God is not white.”
“God is green.”
These three sentences are full of meaning and controversy. God is not one gender; God is both genders. God is not one ethnicity, God is all ethnicities. God loves the creation that was made by words and sees it as beautiful but we are making it unhealthy. Are we able to embrace these words and walk in these truths? Can we allow ourselves to consider the above statements to be true or do we stick them in a closet with a nod of our head and say “some day they can be shared.”

When I think of Ecological Postmodernism, I think about the movement from “meat” factories to holistic ranching and “conventional” gardening to organic gardening. We are told in Scripture that our bodies are the Holy Spirit’s temples and as such, I feel we are obligated to take the best care possible of ourselves, which means eating foods that maximize nutritious qualities and minimize toxins. Nurturing the earth and creation as we also nurture our own physical bodies is a postmodern Christians means of worship, as well!

It is interesting for me to read Malcom X solution to the race problem. Instead of promoting that every culture adopt the “White or European” culture he promotes to accent the differences of other cultures in order to promote diversity and plurality. Now for example in my Country Guatemala Mayan culture has always promoted that women should stay home and take care of children and men are the ones who must go to work. In this postmodern approach, will postmodernists respect and accent these cultural differences even though it might be contrary to their way of thinking?

I have three teenagers.  I hear the word “suck” a lot.  But when they use the word (and I try to break them of the habit) it is usually in reference to some “tragedy” that has occurred—their iPod crashed, the tv remote is lost, the internet is down for a few minutes.  Perspective.  That is what they lack.
This article brings much-needed perspective for those of us who live in privilege, which means much of the U.S. 
As a parent, and a teacher, how do I best bring this perspective to my kids, my students?  And I don’t want to just bring an awareness to them, but a new way of living.  And as the church, how can we motivate those who claim to be followers of Jesus to truly follow Jesus?  Theology has to do much more than explain to make a difference—it must be lived.  I look forward to the practical implications of revisionist postmodernism.

I found the ethnic postmodern segment in this post to be very interesting.  When describing MLK and Malcolm X it stated that the different philosophies that these two represented also represented a modernist and postmodernist view point.  MLK longed for a blending of all cultures to make one.  Malcolm X strived to lead toward a celebration of the African American culture and separate it from the white culture.  Though it seems that MLK is celebrated and memorialized to a much higher level than Malcolm X I believe that it is Malcolm X’s view that is unfolding and taking root.  That would probably be because as stated in the posting, Malcolm’s approach would be called postmodern and would obviously fit the mindset of the cultural shift that is at hand.

I have to say that I experienced a variety of emotions and thoughts as I read this article.

In the very beginning there is the story of a family that lives, for lack of a better word, a garbage dump.  At first, I thought about the people in parts of Mexico where a mission that I am acquainted with frequently ministers.  Then I thought of the neighborhoods that my family and I have been forced to live in since my near fatal accident.  Of course the level of poverty that is described in the article makes our neighborhood look extremely wealthy.  But a lot of the same issues with violence and fear and oppression are there.  I couldn’t help but wonder if Tonika and her family ever migrated away from that garbage dump.

Then, as I read of the Ethnic Postmodernism and the Malcolm X account, I could not help but wonder why the separation of races ever sounded like a good idea to them.  It is in separating that underscores the difference not give argument to equality.

And finally, the Ecological Postmodernism and the Theological implications really stood out to me.  The comments regarding that gender of God not being male or female.  To a certain point are true as God is described as Spirit, there can be no real gender.  That being said, Jesus did take on flesh and walk among His creation in the form of a male.  The God man as we understand took on the form of man, however, there are the feminine qualities of God.  Yet still a completely gender free language seems to be going too far.  The article suggests a gender-less language.  That just seems to be so impractical.  Think about it, That would make God an “IT”, so to speak.  Yet there is the opposite extreme and choosing one gender or the other exclusively.  I am not comfortable with God being fully feminine, but to refer to God in masculine terms “feels” right, but isn’t. 

So, what is the solution? There has to be a happy medium somewhere.  A way to understand God as He truly is without emasculating or offending who he is.  Giving honor where honor is due.  Oh, that I would remain teachable.

The abuse of women and those with a different skin color from our own are evils that have been with us for a very long time.  I would say the same for the abuse of our environment, except that this has been a relatively recent phenomena in that we have only been able to do significant damage on a large scale since nearer to the Industrial Revolution.  Certainly, however, humanity has always engaged in stealing and befouling resources others depended on.

When I read the above article, it became clear to me that all these evils point back to the inherent sinfulness of humanity.  These abuses have always been.  The self-serving nature of all people has brought us to a point where the “winners” reap the benefits while those who have not been adequate competitors, or perhaps were kept from competing at all, have been cast out as rubbish.  White males somehow rose to the top (at least for now).  However, I do believe that if the top consisted of black females, for example, we would be dealing with no lesser evil (though it might be manifested in different ways).
Selfishness and pride—those old, old sins, are the precipitators of most of the grief in this world.  The devil is a self-server.  Christ, however, is not.  He came as a servant.  While Satan’s spirit was that of self-aggrandizement, Christ’s was a pure expression of self-sacrifice.  It is then incumbent upon those in the world who follow Christ to become the liberators of the oppressed through self-sacrifice.  It is, quite simply, the Christian thing to do.

Whether we achieve this under the banner of revisionist or liberation postmodernism is perhaps an important consideration.  Regardless of our theological or philosophical bent, however, it is by bearing of our own cross and each other’s burdens that God will bring a measure justice to people like Tonica.

I find it interesting as we consider Tonica’s fate. She exists in a world that is devoid of hope. Her cultural world is masculine and the woman plays a small part it seems.

We from the West view her plight as terminal. For Tonica, life is as it has always been to some degree. Hunger, strife and struggle are native to her. There is no easy solution to liberate her from what she understands to be reality.  It’s not important for her to focus on whether or not God is white or some other color but whether or not God exists and cares about her!

This has been a lively discussion to say the least.
I agree that the exploitation of people in any way is contrary to the Way of God and the Hope of the Gospel. I recognize that this article is an academic exercise and therefore has little actual implications so I can see room for detached objectivity when considering these philosophical/theological categories.
You mentioned in the theological implications;
“God opposes the oppressor and sides with the broken and marginalized.  God delights in diversity.  God regards all creatures as intrinsically valuable and expects humans to treat all creation accordingly.”
I find this hard to reconcile with Scripture. Much of scripture points to a God who uses oppressive times in response to the depths of sin. God is even mentioned allegorically in several parables to dole out life portions in seemingly unjust/unfair terms, for reasons that could be misperceived as injustice.  Much more of this could be said, but you all are more versed with scripture than I and know of what refer.
To this end the Feminist theological school of thought has had to dismiss much of scripture as integral to much of oppression as Paul and others purvey and portray the authors of the Biblical cannon and its content to be a tool of oppression of women and other minorities. Denuding scripture as authoritative has lead not only to the empowering of women but of others who view themselves a minority group. Namely the LBGT community has long found validation in this scriptureless vacuum. Scripture validates women and all people while recognizing sin as humanity’s problem, using sexual perversion as an example of the depths sin will take us.
How do we listen to these destructive conversations of postmodernism that rightly challenge social ills but demand a theologizing dismissive of Christian authority and revelation? I have such a hard time standing with Venezuela’s president Hugo Chavez as he oppresses his people in the name of Liberation theology, or with the gay pride parades with those who celebrate their debauchery.
I think this is an interesting conversation but I have concluded that Liberation Theology only empowers the oppressed to become the oppressor and it is time to be post-postmodern and begin to heal the upheaval postmodernism has inflicted.

As we develop our own understanding of what it means to live in this postmodern world, it is so important to maintain a balance of these three aspects. As I read though this statement stuck out to me, “Liberationist postmodernists want to be free to live a better life.  They want to escape the array of oppression oozing from modern ways of thinking and acting.” We must also be understanding of those within the modernistic mindset. We all hold true to what we were taught. Sometimes I feel we look at people who disagree with these postmodern thought and think: “How ignorant is he/she.” But the truth is, at some point in life we will be the people holding our ground as a new generation discovers new truths. I pray we remain open minded until the day we die.

I used to be modern in my thinking.  Never would I have given the light of day to liberation, feminist or ecological theology.  There was only one line of theology worthy of God and through that all other lines of thinking passed.  Needless to say not many strands made it off the starting line.  I say this to show my respect I now have for these diverse ways of thinking.  I must admit I have one giant issue with all these different strands is that they way of Christ may not equally transfer over to all things socially.  The pacifist will say that to follow Christ then you must oppose war at all costs.  You must oppose execution rendered down by the state even if this means you go to jail because that is what Jesus would do.  My question is this: how do we know that is what Jesus would do.  We know Jesus laid down his life for us.  This is equal to marching in a protest against war?  I am just unsure everything social justice and the way of Christ are completely, mutually compatible.

My ignorance has prevented me from understanding the connection between Tonica’s plight and postmodern philosophy.  Tonica lives in a society that most of us do not understand in America.  Sure comparisons can be made and our society has problems of its own, but I am failing to see how Tonica’s situation is any worse than the male neighbor she most likely has.

Maybe I am living with rose colored glasses and do not see people being treated unfairly in my world.  I see men and women of all ethnic backgrounds working together, each doing there part to make the community successful.  We are all equal, but we are all different too.  Perhaps this is the essence of postmodernism, I don’t know.  What I do know is that when any one group suggests that the only way we can be equal is if we are exactly the same then we are in danger of losing what makes each individual in our community unique.

Tonica’s story and the discussion following cultivated a re-emergence of a longstanding mystery for me.  I am unable to appreciate why the evolution of personal views, which are consistent with how those of the Christian faith should perceive and interact with their world, has progressed to a place of being now categorized.  The timelessness of God’s message to His people constructs a fairly stable approach to how we are to live with each other, with God and with our selves. When so many marginalized views of ethnicity, ecology, and gender-valuing have emerged, I am suspicious, and to some extent confident, that somehow we have marched more collectively away from the unity God requires than towards it. 
  Tonica perhaps challenges us to re-evaluate how we, as individuals have prioritized our views and our responses to them.  For me, there is little to do with ethnics, gender or ecology when such tragedy, like Tonica’s story, is revealed.  Our gaze should not perch itself to looking points around us in order to assume a position of why something has happened, but instead, it should turn upwardly while sinking inwardly to examine how we should actually empathize and respond to the situation. 
    Please don’t misunderstand, I know that at any given time our views and to some extent our thoughts fit neatly into some categories and I understand the rationality and the necessity of the labels.  But, all the while, for me, a sensed segregation emerges whenever any labeling occurs and of that I am very careful. How we propose to intersect with the world should be very simple and our intention and our focus should be upon how we can assimilate into one connected body of Christ.  This dissolves the requirement to defining its parts by each dissimilarity. 
by

This is a wonderful synopsis of liberation theology and how that plays out in our lives.  I can see value in Luthers argument for equality, but I qualify that with saying that equality is not the same as uniformity.  Equality should exist within the context diversity - cultural or gender. We are all unique beings loved by God, created for purpose and distinctly gifted to change our world. 
Injustice still stands in our world.  Gender-oppression is still actively perpetuated within the Church, even the CotN, which deeply saddens me, since we come from a tradition that was born from bringing justice and love to the injustices of the world. 

I wonder if the issues we see in our churches is more about the migration from modernity to postmodernity than it is about calvinist vs wesley??? Many of our discussions on how to evangelize or disciple don’t boil down to doctrinal stances(i.e Wesley said this, calvin said his, luther said this, etc) but instead boil down to how we view people, how we love, how we allow that love to come out of us.  Of course, I realize that these things are all intertwined and there’s really no separating the arguments.  Injustice calls to us all, the question is what do we do with it.  I say we liberate! We set free! And that begins with setting ourselves free from the chains of our oppressive nature.

Tom,
One test for Liberation theology is to answer a simple question: Are the individuals who champion this model of theology doing their ecclesial work, are they accomplishing God’s will concerning this theology? One worthy, if not spotless, test will be discovered in the answer to the question——is this theology caring for the humblest of its members? If nothing better can be said for the church and the theological ideas it espouses, or that its members are blessed and well sustained, then that theology a long way from God’s ideal. Theology exists for all people and the church, especially, exists for the marginalized and oppressed throughout civilization. The inspirations that are the strength of society are religious inspirations. However, humanity has separated them from the dynamic force of the theology which alone has given them their power. Therefore, their momentum is immobilized by some oppressive force or other hostile ideology. For only the power of God can change humanities nature, and unless humanities nature is changed, every new theology will ultimately objectify the individuals it attempts to help as it justifies its own abusive practices. Apart from religion how can any true liberation theology exist? Society can love its neighbor only as it sees them in the light of God, the God who loves us all.

Tom,

Your opening sentence says it all for many people, “life sucks.”  I would even agree that many in the good old USA have the these sad feelings.  Postmodernists of our world are looking hard to find a way explain the difficulties that many in the world face.  The theology of the Christian conveys hope for the many who feel that “life sucks.”  The challenge that Christians face is helping those who feel lost and hopeless to alter their thinking.

Postmodern Feminism, Ethnic postmodernism and Ecological Postmodernism all believe they have the answer to the problems of the world.  These diverse groups want the world to grab hold of their ideas and move boldly ahead.  This is understandable for those with these ideas.  However, in the world of hopelessness there is only one answer.  The answer is God.  Unfortunately, for many postmodern “good life” searchers God does not fit into their equation.

Tom you wrote, “Ecological postmodernists believe that the earth has been raped and debilitated in the name of the God whom modernists believed placed nonhumans under the domination of humans.”

If it wouldn’t be too androcentric or modernistic of me, I would like to point out a few things that I find hard in the statement above.  I don’t dispute the statement.  How can one disagree with a statement that is simply presenting the fact that a certain group holds a certain belief?  However, I don’t fully understand how humanity has “raped and debilitated” the earth in the name of God.  I don’t dispute that we haven’t been the best custodians of what God has placed under our control.  I do think we have been way too careless and selfish when using the natural resources God has placed here for our benefit.  I hope you’ve noticed my intentional use of the phrases “under our control” and “for our benefit.”  You see, I think the Bible clearly teaches that these two phrases are true.  (Regardless of what some deconstructive postmodernists would say.)

Allow me to remind us of the truth found in Genesis 2:15 where God takes the man (Adam) and places him in the Garden of Eden to “cultivate it and keep it” (NASB).  The Hebrew word which has been translated “keep” is the word shamar which can be translated to keep or to watch or to preserve.  It is not a modernist viewpoint, but one from antiquity, that holds that humanity is to be the custodian of all of creation.  Additionally, in Genesis 1:28, God gave specific instructions that God had placed humans over all of creation (on Earth).  He said, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

I am in agreement with the idea that humanity has not been a good steward of the Earth and the living creatures inhabiting the Earth.  However, I oppose the concept that white-males in modern times came up with a plan to rule the Earth for their own selfish purposes.