Context, Experience, Relevance, Meaning--Part II

Again, the theological priorities that shape faith grow out of the experiences of individuals and societies.  How we approach sacred truth is always mediated through a worldview shaped and framed by what we and those around "go through."  That James H. Cone writes regarding the faith formation of African slaves transported to America is a case in point.  These same principles apply and relate to the way "the poor" read and understand scripture and the other formal and informal sources of their faith. 

The theological assumption of black slave religion as expressed in the spirituals was that slavery contradicts God, and he will therefore liberate black people.  All else was secondary and complemented that basic perspective.  But how did black slaves know  that God was liberating them?  Black slaves did not ask that epistemological question.  As with all ontological assumptions, the truth of a prepositional assertion is found in the giveness of existence itself and not in theory.  Black slaves did not devise philosophical and theological methodologies in order to test the truth of God's revelation as liberation.  From their viewpoint it did not need testing.  They had already encountered its truth and had been liberated by it.  Instead of testing God, they ritualized him in song and sermon.  That was what the spirituals were all about--a ritualization of God in song.  They are not documents for philosophy; they are material for worship and praise to him who had continued to be present with black humanity despite European insanity. . . .

The spirituals nowhere raise questions about God's existence or matters of theodicy and it is safe to assume that the slave community did not perceive a theoretical solution of the problem of evil as a felt need.  Rather, their needs were defined by the existential realities which they encountered.  As slaves, they felt sharply their oppression and complete lack of freedom.  In the Bible, the black slaves found the God who liberated the Israelites from bondage and whose will was the liberation of the oppressed.  This same God who came to mankind in Jesus Christ the Oppressed One, who disclosed that God's will from all eternity was not to be reconciled with human slavery.  Moreover, through the death and resurrection of Jesus, God made clear his will to deliver the oppressed.  This biblical disclosure the slaves appropriated as speaking directly to their own condition.  Whether they reasoned correctly about the Bible's message is irrelevant, a question for speculative discussion by those not entrapped in their situation. 

That this theme of God's involvement in  history and his liberation of the oppressed from bondage should be central in black slave religion and the spirituals is not surprising, for it corresponded with the black people's need to know that their slavery was not the divine Creator's intention for them. In fastening on this knowledge, they experienced the awareness of divine liberation.  Their experience of it and their faith in its complete fulfillment became factual reality and self-evident truth for the slave community.  Only those outside the community and the experience could dare question it or remain unconvinced.  To be sure, they did not deny:
   
          Sometimes I'm up, sometimes I'm down,
          Oh, yes, Lord!
          Sometimes I'm almost on the ground,
         Oh, yes, Lord!

But the certain fact is always that God is present with them and trouble will not have the last word.  Penultimately, white masters may torture and kill slaves capriciously, and the world seem only chaos and absurdity.  But ultimately God is in control and black slaves believe that they have encountered the infinite significance of his liberation.  And so they lifted up their voices and sang:

          Do, Lord, remember me.
          Do, Lord, remember me.
         When I'm in trouble,
         Do, Lord, remember me.

         When I'm low down,
         Do, Lord, remember me.
         Oh, when I'm low down,
        Do, Lord, remember me. 
    

Restore what?

The version of Christianity passed along to me was based on a very narrow sort of primitivism.

Growing up and on into my college and adult years, the fundamental (no pun intended here) concept behind the faith tradition of my family was "restoration." The goal was to restore in word and practice the life and teachings of the earliest Christian communities. We wanted to be "1st century Christians," never mind that we found ourselves in the midst of the tumultuous twentieth century, a fact that we seemed to work hard to ignore.

As I slowly began to awaken to a larger view of my faith, it became clear that both our understandings of the earliest Christians and our selection of just which words and practices to restore needed serious reconsideration.

For example, I grew up convinced that instrumental music in worship was a heinous sin worthy of eternal damnation! Our list of practices, terms and methods to be "restored" was set out very clearly and in terms that made it easy to pass along to others. And, did we ever try! The "five steps to salvation," the proper organization of the church, the correct terms for labeling church leaders, the frequency of celebrating the Lord's Supper, the strict avoidance of the historic creeds of orthodoxy (afterall, the earliest believers had no such statements), refusal even to pray the Lord's Prayer since it was a prayer from the Mosaic dispensation (never mind who first offered the prayer!). . .the list went on.

I remember working my way through a book written by a famous preacher from a generation before mine. "Why I am a member of [my denomination]." We worked our way through that book again and again. I remember as a young minister in training that I led my country congregation through the book. Reflecting on that experience, I think it was then that the sharp turn in my own view began to become clear. Internally, the book's title changed slightly but significantly to "Why am I a member of my denomination?"

While the notion of restoration had much to commend it as a framing tool/principle for biblical interpretation and hermeneutics, the major challenge with the method had to do with the choices to be made as to what would be restored. The subjectivity of the entire process made for lots of really strange divisions and practices in our little corner of the Christian world.

My questions began to revolve more and more around what Jesus said and did.

The value basis of his words intrigued me greatly. Consideration of their application led me to listen to other voices outside my heritage. And, Jesus led me to rethink my approach to the Bible in general.

Not surprisingly, I found the same values expressed in the Hebrew Bible, values that clearly under girded those of Jesus. I remember vividly when it hit me that Jesus was executed for his value statements and for what they meant regarding how he and his followers treated others. It became clear that his values and actions, his lifestyle and sacrifices charted a course that made lots of sense in a world of pain, need, war, division and injustice like mine.

I suppose I'll never completely escape the interpretive paradigm of my youth. So, for me the question will remain, "Restore what?"

How about this for a start?

"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat,

I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink,

I was a stranger and you invited me in,

I needed clothes and you clothed me,

I was sick and you looked after me,

I was in prison and you came to visit me."

Here it appears to me that we hit upon the restoration of people and our world.

What's your story?
.