Transcript
Well, on behalf of the president and faculty here at Princeton Theological Seminary, I want to welcome you to the last of this series of lectures by Dr. James Evans. He's been introduced several times. I will be quite brief, but his life pilgrimage took him from Detroit to the University of Michigan to Yale to Union Theological Seminary to Colgate, Rochester, where he's been president since 1990 and now to Princeton. It's all one grand crescendo. He is the
author of numerous articles and has been invited to do a series, several series of distinguished lectures, and he has authored three books and a good number, maybe all of the lectures from this series will also appear in a forthcoming work. He's a member. I was intrigued to learn about how many organizations he is a part of, and if you look at another part of his biographical sketch, you find out how many awards and honors he has
won. It's really quite remarkable, and I'm reminded of the aphorism of my favorite professor, James Luther Adams, who said, they mistranslated the scripture. They should have said, by their groups ye shall know them, and in his case, you can recognize the honors that those entail. Tonight he's lecturing to us on the problem of health in the African American experience. Nice to have you here. I want to thank Professor Stackhouse for the very kind introduction. He and
I have enjoyed a friendship that goes back to the days when the faculty at American Baptist Seminary used to get together for consultation, and I certainly appreciate his kind introduction. I want to express my thanks and appreciation to President Gillespie, to the faculty, the students, the staff, and the entire community here at Princeton Theological Seminary for the warmth and hospitality, as well as the generosity with which you have received me. I want to thank you for
the sympathetic hearing that you have granted to my work. I indeed have many friends on this faculty and am blessed that I now have more than when I came. I especially want to mention the hospitality and grace, however, of my good friend, Professor Peter Paris. I want to acknowledge and thank all of the people who have had the task of making a somewhat pedantic resume, an interesting introduction, and I want to thank all of those whose
friendship I now enjoy. I also want to thank the African American students for arranging lunch for me today, and those of you who have shared your insights and wisdom with me. As I close these 1996 stone lectures, I do so with a profound sense of thanksgiving. I'm also aware that Dr. Charles Booth, who is, among other things, an alum of our school, is preaching at 8 o'clock, and I know that devotion begins at 8 PM.
I would not want you nor I to miss a moment of what promises to be a special event. So let me briefly conclude with a few summary comments on health, disease, and salvation. We're going to talk about health and disease in the Bible, and then health, disease, and salvation. To sum up what we have said this afternoon, within the history of medical thought in the West, a rhetoric of disease emerged. This rhetoric persisted through the
rationalistic development of medical thought because it provided a way to account for the strange and unknown in human experience. In the course of time, that rhetoric was associated with people of African descent. This association was buttressed by Western philosophical and cultural discourse and by certain aspects of Western Christian narratives. The system of chattel slavery in the United States found support in this rhetoric of disease because black skin was deemed pathological. The question which confronts us at
this juncture is, what are the resources which the Bible offers to counter this rhetoric of disease, especially as it is associated with blackness? The contribution of the Hebrew scriptures to this topic is found in its purity codes, its hygienic restrictions, and in its focus on the relationship between health and wholeness. The dietary and sanitary restrictions found in the Pentateuch and described in the older commentaries stress the point that these mandates had their source and ultimate purpose
in obedience to God. However, later scholars have argued that dietary restrictions against eating certain animals had a basis in the maintenance of human health and the prevention of disease. In addition, the practice of circumcision is, in this view, not only an act of obedience to God, but is also recognized by the medical profession as good preventative medicine. One could point to the biblical injunctions requiring those who are diseased to remain separate from the community as a
form of quarantine, or one could point to the command for ritual washing of the hands as good antiseptic practice. The emphasis on showing that the mandates of the Hebrew Bible are consistent with good medical practice is more meaningful to those for whom good medical care is readily available, but it says very little to those whose lives are circumscribed by the rhetoric of disease. A more critical perspective on the origin and derivation of these biblical mandates would
recognize that, in all likelihood, the Israelites inherited a number of their beliefs about disease from ancient Mesopotamian cultures. Putting the biblical mandates regarding dietary restrictions in a broader social context might yield a different perspective on their origin and function. As we have noted, much has been made of a presumably medical basis for the food prohibitions in Jewish tradition, but there may be other explanations. One recent suggestion is that the taboo against pigs was originally related to
their competition with humans for water and grain, scarce commodities in a barren land, in contrast to cattle and sheep which consume relatively little water and graze on forage inedible to humanity. Since transmissible parasitic diseases and infestations such as tapeworm are also found in sheep and cows, singling out trichinosis in pigs would not be wholly logical in this perspective. However, to discourage the raising of swine so as to conserve water and grain resources for human consumption, a
strict religious taboo may have been necessary, considering the nearly universal agreement on the delectableness of pork. Medical observations may have indeed been at the core of hygienic codes, but the biblical listing of seemingly unrelated creatures prohibited as food is difficult to associate with purpose that are purely hygienic. While one cannot deny that the prophylactic measures found in the Mosaic Law have significance as preventative medicine, there may have been other factors involved in their development. The ideas
of health and disease in the Hebrew Bible must be understood in the individual context in which they are discussed. This means that health as defined in the Mosaic Law is similar to the description adopted by the World Health Organization in 1946. Health is, quote, a state of complete well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. In the Hebrew Bible, health involves the unity of the mind, body, and spirit. The healthy person is the
person who exhibits physical, mental, and spiritual wholeness. This sense of wholeness, of shalom, of well-being is not confined merely to the individual person, but extends beyond the individual to the community as well. The healthy person is an integral part of the community. Health and disease are complex notions in the Hebrew Bible. Health is not merely the absence of affliction, but involves a unique quality of life. Disease cannot be explained simply as divine punishment for sin,
a common belief among ancient Mesopotamian cultures, because the story of Job reveals otherwise. It is an indeterminate aspect of human experience which derives its meaning in large part from its context. The principal biblical resources which have traditionally been used to address questions of health and disease have been found in the New Testament. Here the presence of disease is often associated with questions of theodicy. Within the New Testament, there are at least six different explanations for infirmity.
The first is possession by demons or evil spirits. The second is that God has inflicted disease to punish the sufferer for his or her sins. The third is that it may be punishment for the sins of one's parents. We find that in John 9 and 3. The fourth is that it may be punishment for sins in a past life. There is very minute but real evidence for that also in the Gospel of John. And the fifth
is that disease may be permitted to show God's power to heal. A sixth is that disease may be permitted to show God's power to sustain the sufferer, even if the disease is not healed. While there is textual evidence to support these explanations of illness in the New Testament, there are deeper issues involved which are important to understanding the revolutionary significance of Jesus' healing ministry. In the field of medical anthropology, crucial distinctions are made between disease, illness
and sickness. One of the most influential writers in the field describes them in the following manner. Disease refers to abnormalities in the structure and or function of organs and organ systems. Disease refers to pathological states, whether or not they are culturally recognized. Illness refers to a person's perceptions and experiences of certain socially disvalued states, including but not limited to disease. Sickness is a blanket term to label events involving disease and or illness. The key to these
definitions is that disease refers to some inherent abnormality in the person. Both illness and sickness include a focus on the subjectivity of the sufferer. Most definitions of disease, illness and sickness in the field of medical anthropology share the emphasis on disease as a thing that overshadows or renders meaningless the subjectivity of the sufferer. Illness and sickness are determined by asking the patient how he or she feels in anticipation of treatment. Disease on the other hand is
associated with some external observable feature of the person. Here in disease the subjectivity of the sufferer is obscured and quarantine is often prescribed. This explains the tendency of some New Testament scholars to discount the significance of the category of disease and to emphasize illness as the most appropriate concept to relate to healing and health. However, it is my contention that it is disease with all of its connotations and effects that Jesus addresses in his ministry of
healing. The function of disease is that it removes the person from the community. It prevents wholeness and solidarity among people. It overshadows the personhood of the sufferer. It consigns the sufferer to an existence within the company of the afflicted. This is why Jesus never looked down on or shunned the sufferers of disease. In many of his healing miracles he brought the sufferer of disease into community. Those who are ill or sick elicit compassion because they are
recognized as human beings by others in the community. Thus one way to understand the healing ministry of Jesus is that he takes disease and removes the stigma associated with it so that the person is seen as one who is ill or sick, therefore deserving of compassion and treatment. The oppressive nature of the physical condition of the sufferer is alleviated and true healing can take place. The disease most often explicitly named in the New Testament is leprosy.
Jesus' willingness to approach those suffering from this dreaded disease is even more significant in light of the stigma involved. Most biblical scholars agree that what is called leprosy was not one thing but a name for a variety of symptomatic conditions, all of which were associated with the skin. This points to the function of disease in any culture. It does not invite close investigation. It is a marker for that for which we are afraid. This is the
reason that black people have been associated with dreaded diseases since at least the sixth century. What African Americans find in the miraculous healing ministry of Jesus is a way out of the company of the afflicted and into the community of the redeemed. The Bible provides resources for the deconstruction of the rhetoric of disease which had often attended the experience of people of African descent. The Bible does not give a definitive answer to the question of why
disease afflicts some and not others. Even Jesus does not attempt to explain the presence of disease. He simply affirms that as creations of God, the sufferers of disease are promised wholeness and salvation. Jesus brought hope, dignity, and liberation to the sick and afflicted. His ministry of healing is central to a revision of our understanding of the meaning of salvation. This brings us to the final task of this lecture, that is the articulation of a proposal for
revising our theological understanding of salvation. Is there a balm in Gilead? African Americans have creatively used the resources at hand to articulate an understanding of salvation suited to their own circumstances. These resources include traditional Western notions of salvation and notions of healing in African traditional religions and African Christianity. The blend of these elements in the unique context of the experience of black people in the new world has yielded new insights into the nature of health and
salvation. One of the more perplexing questions in the history of Western Christian thought concerns the rationale for the salvation of humanity. Since at least the time of Athanasius, soteriology has been intimately connected with Christology in Christian thought. That is, the question of the salvation of humanity is wound up with the question of the identity of Jesus Christ. Within the variety of older theories of salvation, there is involved a commerce between Jesus Christ and God. It is
the mystery of this interaction which gives rise to and ultimately supersedes each theory. The ransom theory associated with Origen and Gregory of Nysa held that humanity had wandered from God and had fallen into the hands of the devil who demanded a price for the release of humankind. The price demanded was the blood of Christ. The satisfaction theory associated primarily with Anselm proposed that by sinning, humanity had dishonored God. Only the life of Jesus Christ could restore
that honor. The moral or exemplarist theory generally associated with Abelard held that the purpose of the life and death of Christ was to model the righteousness and love which is inherent in humanity. The penal or judicial theory, which emerged in the reformation period and is associated with John Calvin among others, proposed that human sin was a crime for which the justice of God demanded punishment. In this theory, Christ accepted the guilty verdict for us. The sacrificial
theory, which is consistently present in Western Christian thought from the time of Augustine through the Middle Ages up into the Enlightenment, asserted that the forgiveness of human sin required a blood sacrifice. Jesus Christ, the Lamb without spot, was therefore slain for our transgressions. The goal of the salvific act has been described in numerous ways. It is the deification of humanity, the imputation of righteousness before God, it is a union with Christ, it is moral perfection, authentic
humanity, political liberation, among others. They all point to the removal of the barriers between God and humanity as requisite for human wholeness and well-being. Most modern notions of salvation also point in this direction. Karl Barth's notion of salvation as reconciliation, Rudolph Bultmann's notion of salvation as authentic existence, Reinhold Niebuhr's notion of salvation as the restoration of original justice, Paul Tillich's notion of salvation as participation in new being, Karl Rahner's notion of salvation as the self
-offering of God to the world, Gustavo Gutiérrez's notion of salvation as liberation from class oppression, Rosemary Radford-Ruther's notion of salvation as original wholeness of humanity as found in the picture of Mary. They all imply the reconnection of humanity with God. However, all of these theories of salvation, both ancient and modern, focus upon the effects of sin upon the sinners. This is an element of the doctrine of salvation which, true, has found a home in African
-American Christian thought. However, African-American Christians have asked more of soteriology. They want to know not only what does salvation mean to the sinner, but what does salvation mean to those who are the victims of sin? In traditional African thought and African Christian thought, health is understood as harmony and disease as disharmony. One African writer notes that in African traditional thought, any sickness is viewed not only as a threat to one's existence, but also as a
destabilization of cosmic harmony, as there was no real distinction made between the natural and the supernatural. In African traditional, as well as African Christian thought, health and disease are intimately associated with matters of the spirit. There is an overriding belief in the spiritual causation of illness, even while acknowledging the efficacy of Western medical innovations and practices. The spirit is not only involved in the causation of disease, but in African Christian thought, the spirit is also involved
in healing. The role of the Holy Spirit has been central to the self-understanding of many indigenous African Christian churches. Among African Pentecostal churches, the power of the Holy Spirit affects healing by defeating the spiritual causes of illness. This healing includes not just bodily recuperation, but finding remedies for unemployment, family disputes, racism, marital discords, and controversies between factions in a tribe or a village. It is interesting to note that among some of these African indigenous congregations,
there is harbored among them a suspicion that the Europeans purposely did not tell them about the power of the Holy Spirit, because it was that, they feel, which is the animation of Christianity, and once discovered it, they have discovered what they believe is the true power of the Christian faith. In African traditional thought, the sick person is not simply a subdued recipient of medical treatment. In African traditional thought, the sick person is not seen as a
passive patient, the suffering object of the active therapist, or as the determined occupant of the sick role, but the patient is an agent, a subject seeking help, engaged in the quest for therapy, in problem solving, in manipulating the resources available in the environment, and if need be, changing that environment. On this quest for therapy, the patient might seek a number of treatments, including the use of herbs, ritual cleansing, and incantations or prayers. In African traditional thought,
the concept of salvation as healing focuses on the plight of the victim of disease, with the alleviation of the suffering which accompanies it. This is often done by attempting to placate the offended spirits. However, African American Christians have asked more of the notion of healing. In what way does human healing reflect God's providential care through the power of the Holy Spirit for the entire created order? James Lapsley, Donald Blesch, among others, have argued convincingly that health
and salvation or health and forgiveness are not synonymous. Not everyone who enjoys health will be saved. Not everyone who is saved will enjoy physical health. Health and salvation are, however, related terms, and within the context of a rhetoric of disease as blackness, both ideas need to be revised. Health as symbolized by access to quality health care has become, in our time, a privatized commodity. It has lost its social, communal, and covenantal character. This loss of shared
public understandings of health contributes to an unhealthy national and international situation in which consumer expectations converge and contend over costly resources. The pursuit of perfect health has raised the volume of discussions of health care, but has also skewed its role and importance in human existence. The fact that health is not synonymous with salvation or forgiveness suggests that health, like salvation, is a gift. Health is a relative term. It is not to be thought of as some
ideal human condition. Health, while important, is only one aspect of a life worth living. A spiritually balanced life seeks harmony. A measure of good health is valuable to the degree that it allows one to give glory to God. This is why traditional prayers in African-American Christian worship will often begin by thanking God for a reasonable portion of health and strength. Thank you for letting me awake this morning clothed in my right mind with the blood
running warm in my veins. Health is a penultimate good. Life in the presence of God is the ultimate good. Salvation, like health, is a gift from God. However, salvation has become a private affair, referring to the redemption of the individual from guilt, despair, fear, and death. That is, salvation has become a private affair. However, salvation is social because sin is social. The social character of sin is not simply its manifestations in institutions, theologians, just like Walter
Rauschenbusch highlighted this aspect of sin through the social gospel. But sin is social because the sin of an individual is not just an offense to God, it injures other people. The social character of salvation is not merely its focus on groups. The notion of salvation in the Hebrew Bible emphasized this aspect of redemption. Salvation is social because the redemption of the victims of sin can be the avenue through which those whose sinfulness wreak havoc in the
world are also saved. This means that the description of salvation must include those who are wounded by sin. In African American experience, salvation is not escape from the challenges of creaturely existence. Redemption is not exemption. In African American experience, racism is recognized as a cultural pathology. In spite of an environment created by the rhetoric of disease as blackness, people of African descent have always known that they are the victims of the pathology of racism and not
the carriers of a social disease. This knowledge is encoded in the cultural form of the blues. There is a striking similarity between the blues in African American experience and the experience called Han in Korean experience. This similarity has led to a view on the nature of salvation that is quite compatible with that described here. Andrew Sung Park observes that in the efforts to heal the victims of their sins or the sins of others, sinners can experience
salvation. The idea that sinners can achieve salvation by confessing their own sin regardless of the welfare of their victims is a narcissistic illusion. In the blues, the awareness of one's status as a victim of racism is the first step towards transcending that status. The diagnosis of the association of blackness and disease is the first step towards the therapeutic affirmation that blackness is healthy. Salvation as healing is a central concern in African American Christianity. The ways in
which this salvation is experienced draws upon the traditions of African healing and Western soteriology. There are three major ways of salvation. First, salvation occurs through the prayers of the faithful. This recalls the fact that in African healing rituals incantations are used in the healing process. It also recalls the salvific power of the word in Reformation theology. Bringing both of these aspects together, we can understand why prayer is essential to salvation as health because it overcomes the
alienating effects of disease by bringing the victims into union with God and humanity. Second, salvation occurs through the gathered community of faith. This recalls the ecstatic presence of the spirit experienced by the collective group in African traditional healing rituals. It also recalls the patristic emphasis on the church as the means of salvation. The combination of these two reveals to us that the worshiping community enables, sustains, confirms, and shares in the healing of its members, and it
thereby becomes the means of salvation. Third, salvation occurs through the sacraments or ordinances of the Lord's Supper and Baptism. This recalls the use of herbal medicines and ritual bathing as healing practices in African traditional religions. It also recalls ancient Christian views on the efficacy of the bread, the wine, and the water. By combining these, we understand that these ritual practices emphasize the participation of each member of the community in the salvific presence of Christ. Salvation and
health are interrelated in human experience. This is because the notion of disease continues to function as a symbol for that which we do not understand. The limits of Western medicine are evident in the appearance of new strains of disease and of disease carriers, of diseases generated by alterations in the environment, and the inability of doctors to deal with the social sources of illness, and in the appearance of even new diseases of affluence, as they're called. Healing
will continue to occupy the imagination of the Christian community for reasons other than the failures of modern medicine. Healing brings to the fore the power of the salvation of God, and it serves evangelistic purposes. F.D. Bruner states that, and I quote him here, nothing attracts men and attests the gospel quite like the healing of infirmities. Indeed, healing fills out the full gospel of a full salvation, end of quote. In African-American worship, the references to
Jesus as the restorer of health and wholeness are numerous. Jesus is a doctor who has never lost a patient. Jesus is the one who gives me all of my medicine. Jesus is the balm in Gilead to heal the sin-sick soul. In a society where the means to health have become a commodity ruled by the marketplace, and where people of African descent have too often found themselves circumscribed by the rhetoric of disease, salvation must mean more
than escape from the natural processes of living and dying. Salvation must give ultimate meaning to life itself. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Will you be willing to entertain something? I know you said eight o'clock, but you've still got 20 minutes. Right. That's fine. Yes, Peter. Yeah, two things. One is a small thing. I think it's a little bit, and that is, you indicated early on in the book that Jesus Well,
that's my extrapolation on that story of Cosmas and Damien, the two twin physicians. And that's my take on the fact that this mythology that had the diseased leg of the sacristan implanted onto the body of the Ethiopian or African, as we would probably call it in that situation. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I've seen that one. It's excellent. Yeah. Yeah. I think probably I would have to defend my assertion in light of his evidence, because I think there,
as I said today, there is a debate actually within the community as to when the modern notion of racism actually emerged in Western Christian thought. Some people put it way early, and some people say, no, it didn't emerge till the Enlightenment period. That's very late. And you can rustle up all kinds of evidence on both sides. So I think it would be probably up to me, since Professor Davidson has produced that very strong and very thoroughly
researched documentary on Africa, that I would have to defend that in a more explicit manner. My other point is that I have two points. And I was wondering, doesn't that place the individual in a situation of impassive, or how does the individual who is said actively participate in the structure, the structural ways of salvation? Because I think you're absolutely right, certainly in the traditional African orientations of the individual had to play a role, an active role
in the restoration of health. Yeah. Yeah, that would need to be explicated, because in the earlier part of the comments tonight, I indicated that in the African view, the person who is sick is an agent on the quest for therapy. I mean, the person is looking for that and is actively involved in doing, changing whatever needs to be changed to become healthy. And so I think that would have to be probably drawn out a little more
explicitly to make sure that what gets emphasized is not simply that the individual receives something, but that the individual's subjectivity is never simply masked over, and their role as agent is never really masked over in this whole salvific process. Yes, we have a question back here, and then we'll come to you. When I finished my undergraduate studies, I worked for an organization called the African American Donor Task Force in the Bay Area, and our intent was
to improve African Americans, people of African descent, into the national blood, bone marrow, and organ registry. And I found that work very revealing, very interesting, very challenging. One, African Americans have a hesitancy, as you've already stated, about giving blood when you come to issues like the kegian experience. But when we got to organ donation, I found a very interesting phenomenon. We actually did research and documented it, that people of African descent had a notion that they
did not want to donate organs, primarily with a theological reflection on the issue of the bodily resurrection, and the idea of giving organs and having our bodies on the Well, I haven't encountered it. I think it's fascinating, because in the book on believers, there is a section in which I deal with hope, and the whole notion of what bodily resurrection means for African American Christians. And I'd have to think about it. I have not really experienced
a lot of input from people who resist organ donation for that purpose, but I will say that there is a sense in which the issue of resurrection in most African American Christian communities means something more than simply the resurrection of a disembodied spirit. It's something more involved at how much more, well, I mean, that's a point for discussion, but that is an interesting observation. Yes? Probably not. Well, I think, you know, there are a number of,
that's a big topic. I mean, racism can be defined in a variety of ways. I mean, I think the one that has had the most impact on me, basically, is George Kelsey's definition, racism and Christian understanding of man, which is a very old book, but I think it's still one of the things that's, I haven't found too many statements that surpass it, because it talks about racism as a kind of a deep-seated, both psychological and
cultural phenomenon that has more to do with more than simply prejudicial practices and discriminatory practices. It has to do with the way you view reality, so I don't think I could give you a better one than Dr. Kelsey wrote down for us back in, I guess, the 1960s or so, or before that, but that's the one that probably has, that really has impacted me the most. Yes? I don't know what to do with that one, because
I think that it is becoming increasingly important that we somehow deconstruct racism so that we can be in a relationship, and it seems as though there are some theological trends, too, that we're looking at, we're looking at some of the, you know, we're looking at all of those things. Well, I think you're right, and I think that's one of the things that I think I'm, I think I'm interested in doing. However, I guess the methodology that
I've chosen is to not to try to define it first, but to take what I see are specific instances of what I would call it and talk about how this whole thing works, and as you work through enough instances, you find a pattern emerging which allows you to recognize it when you see it in other contexts as well. So I think, for me, I guess right now I'm not as interested in pursuing conceptual clarity prior to
doing the work. You know, I think for me right now, the way I'm working, the conceptual clarity begins to emerge as I immerse myself into the work itself. Well, I think you need to be able to recognize it. Yeah. Well, you know, I see, I think. Yeah. Well, see, I think there are a number of tasks. I use the word recognize. I think to describe it is another way of approaching it. I think there is a
subtle bias involved in trying to define a phenomena before you really sort of get into it, and I guess what I've been trying to do personally is to resist the temptation to say what it is and then go looking for it. You know, I guess what I want to say is that something is wrong in this particular situation, and what's wrong in this situation has to do with black folk and how they relate in the Western
world and so forth. It seems to me that you have laid out in your lectures a moral analysis of racism and the theological implications of that, and that there is a vast liturgy on the subject of racism, psychology, sociology, political science, economic, history, philosophy. And each one of these disciplines is a big liturgy on the subject, and they don't all define racism in the same way. That's true. Yeah, thanks a lot. That is helpful. That's true.
Yes. But for me, I have two types of questions to that. One is, but do you think the glory of God is rooted in the meaning of Christianity over the years? You know, it's for me, both glorifying of Christian and Catholic, but that is not so. I think that is the meaning. And also, when you take away the cross, that is the one great symbol of Christianity. I think more and more we lose the symbolism in
religion. You know, then we lose the sense of religion. I live in a very simple Christianity, whereas other religions are much more simple. Yeah, I think I need to make clear that what I was doing was describing the emerging Christological emphasis in womanist theology. So it wasn't me saying, I mean, I want to say that that was what I saw happening a little bit in Jackie Grant, a little more in Dolores Williams and the other writers
who wrote. So there is. I mean, in Sisters in the Wilderness, that's what she says. So I'm basically describing that now. So that whole lecture was really about a kind of a description. The first part was a description of the trajectories in womanist theology. Where is it going? Where is it heading? And so forth. It was not meant to be a defense of those particular things, because if that were the case, I think I would have
had to engage them on a number of issues. So my theology personally, while it is very sympathetic to a lot of the concerns raised in much womanist theology, my methodological approach to some of the Christian symbols are different. So I think that needs to be made clear. But what I wanted to basically understand was here is the trajectory and here is why womanist theologians are saying that the cross should be de-emphasized and the life and
ministry of Jesus should be emphasized. Sure, I mean, we can disagree with that perspective, but I think it's important that we understand it and the social conditions that gives rise to theological articulation and then engage it in that sense. Yes? Because I've encountered it as an asset coming from the United States, it fascinates me, it upsets me, and it's kind of a novelty for me in some respects. During theological reflection, I wanted to know what's the
relationship of racism for African Americans in theological reflection, because essentially it's important if it's significant to think about relationship with each other and ultimately relationship with God. And I'm wondering, looking at all the various disciplines and how they define it, whether they start to approach it or not, etc. What is the theologian tool when he, she goes about thinking about racism as a basis of reflection? Tomorrow it's going to be spiritual, what things are they going
to use? And because I'm saying that, it seems to me that that's very, very important from that experience in these racist societies. Well, I think at some level you need to use whichever ones or ones that are helpful to you in articulating the perspective that you want to articulate and whatever you have expertise in. I think that as we look at that, it ought to be, let me just tell you what my perspective in terms of
various kinds of social issues and problems that I'm interested in. And I'm interested in them because I see them from my own personal perspective as having a profound impact on African American life in general and upon the ability of those of us who minister with African Americans to do effective ministry. Therefore, in order for me to do effective ministry, I have to understand the myriad of ways in which racism impacts the lives of people, which means
that I'll have to understand racism from a variety of perspectives or as many as I possibly can or as many as I'm intellectually equipped to understand them from. So the answer to your question, it depends on who you are. I don't think, well, I'll just end there, but I think it depends on the time that you have. Okay. We'll do two more quick ones and then we're done. In light of the African American community, it sort
of looks like salvation is being the ultimate and helping a certain part of the process on the way to salvation. I have seen occur some things about ministers trying to explain to people who are not yet converted what it means to be ill, what it means to be sick, and yet still to even want to have a desire to be converted. What advice do you get when you take your lecture and apply it or are there
some other Well, I don't know. I think that would really depend on the context. I really couldn't answer in a kind of a general way. I think, like all pastoral situations, you kind of feel your way through them and you're measuring the response of the person who is suffering. Part of the way you minister is always in response to what you hear from them. I think that's a very individual decision that any pastor would have to
make. One more. Yes. Excuse me. You were talking about health, but in the response you said in the minister, in the black community, I know from the city of Chicago Southside, there's three things you can see. You can see the church, you can see the liquor store, you can see the liquor store. And as ministers of the church, like you said, we have prayers where, you know, thank God for my countenance for that. But why is
it that when we talk about race, what's our responsibility? In our neighborhood, it's a spiritual thing. People, you know, the liquor store, they're selling their quarts, they have 40 ounces. People are smoking cigarettes. A diet hasn't changed. And this is killing them. And we can say, Jesus, thank you, Lord, and all that, if we don't change. And then even with the disease of alcoholism, drug addiction, you better not go to the black church on this day,
because I have this problem. They don't want to hear that. You know, and I guess my world is, how do you change that for all the world? Maybe I'm seeing something different. No, I think you're right. And what I'm pushing for is a revision of what we understand as salvation to include a concern about that so that salvation cannot be preached in those communities apart from attention to those forces which are cutting short life and which
are diminishing the quality of life. So that that involves a kind of revaluation of both the understandings of health and salvation. I think that's OK. Thank you. I just want to say that in view of the profundity of the questions which your remarks triggered and evoked, you may have to come back some other time. It's wonderful having you here. We stand adjourned.