Diana Hayes on u.s. contextual theologies
2009 December 30
How do we create and/or develop a language that is new and uniquely of the United States in which to communicate with each other, breaking down the barrier of old and new hatreds, old and new memories, old and new fears? The language of Todorov and Levinas, of Metz and others is the language of the old world. When do we accept and assume the responsibility of creating new worlds, new methods, new understandings, in which to express both our otherness and our sameness to one another, in order to build that communion and solidarity to which we are rightly called as followers of Christ? Is it not time, not simply for a new political theology but for a liberating and liberated theology from the underside? Is it not time for a truly contextual theology, even perhaps discordantly polyvocal and polycentric, which lifts up the absent and unheard voices, contexts, and experiences that bring new languages, new understandings, new analyses to new and challengingly different questions?
Diana L. Hayes, “Response to David Power, O.M.I” in The Multicultural Church: A New Landscape in U.S. Theologies, William Cenkner, ed. (New York: Paulist Press, 1996), 107.
Sounds like the Americanist heresy with a ‘70s makeover: pretty much what’s been passed off as Roman Catholicism in many places for about 35 years. The fantasies of people who lost their original faith but kept the ‘50s habit they were raised in of going to church. The kids don’t have that culture so either they’re honest and don’t go (a majority) or honest and listen to people like Pope Benedict instead (a minority).
Welcome back, Young Fogey.
So, what the hell are you talking about?
Funny, only some days ago I talked to an Argentine pastor about how theologians of Latin American origin who have been working in the US for years are still considered Latin American theologians and thus experts for liberation theology. So yeah, I for my part would appreciate a US contextual theology. Greets, Anubis.