some more questions

Do theologians, etc. who speak from the margins see more clearly than those who speak from the center (to use Jung Young Kim’s language)? I believe some liberation theologians speak of the epistemological advantage of the marginalized; and I have noted that I sense more vitality and truth in the words of the marginalized (or those from the dominant culture who listen closely to the non-dominant neighbor) than in the words of those who speak from the center and do not even realize their centrality.

For example, I have seriously wondered if our Brehm center is not counter-productive by focusing on that which is a concern and of interest to predominantly white, suburban Christians. Is this just another spiritual vineyard for us wealthy to enjoy while our neighbors and the foreigner among us starve (literally and figuratively)? That is at my most cynical moments—but I do seriously wonder at times. The people I worship with on Sundays, African-Americans, do not have much time to think about the juncture of theology and art; they are more concerned with housing their brothers and sisters, getting the young people into and through college, and helping each other get out from under the tyranny of credit-card companies. They do also love dance and music; but they have no need of an institute in which to study such things.

When in one afternoon I go from reading the theology of the marginalized to reading about “the problem of divine action,” I sense a jarring dissonance, and try as I might to assure myself that the kingdom needs people to think about the problem of divine action it sounds and feels incredibly far away, scholastic, and trivial. I have grown up in a context in which the intellectual is highly valued, yet I wonder if what truly maters is sensitivity to the least of these rather than philosophical and theological sophistication/viability etc. Would a community that ignored whether its beliefs cohered with the latest thought in science and the humanities but focused simply on feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting those in prison survive? Would such a community be more vital and attuned to God’s will, to the kingdom, than a community in which theological, philosophical and other theoretical concerns were eloquently and insightfully addressed but which did nothing to feed, clothe, visit, etc.? My wife reminds me that there is more to the kingdom than social justice; but this thought experiment does bother me.

I have a deep seated instinct to seek moderation, in this case to say that both (social justice and theoretical work) are needed—but is that right? Somehow I feel the community that ignored the theoretical all together and focused entirely on living out the kingdom would be better off. But perhaps this is wrong; perhaps such a community would become something like the Elks Club or the Shriners—ostensibly committed to good but ultimately rather innocuous. When I reflect on the Christians who have influenced me the most, and the leaders who I resonate most with, most have a combination of practical and theoretical insight. Theory should, in theory, lead to practice, and practices set the ponderous among us to theorizing. But I do not want to evade the pressure of these questions--I still wonder about the Brehm center.