Dramatizing Theologies

A Participative Approach to Black God-Talk

Anthony G. Reddie

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9781317491415
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Black theology has flourished within the academy. Its theories, however, have not always translated into practical use for Black people. 'Dramatizing Theologies' outlines the strong practical dimension of Black theology. Combining Black theology with dramatic, dialogical sketch material, the book produces an accessible approach to Black theological dialogue. The chasm between the academy, church and grassroots communities is overcome through the use of drama. 'Dramatizing Theologies' offers a unique methodology for Black theological conversation with the poor, marginalized and disenfranchised.

Act III
Detailing the Denouement

4 What Lies Behind the Façade?: Developing an Underlying Method for Bringing Drama and Black Theology Together

In the last chapter I demonstrated the means by which Black theology can be carried in a dramatic form in order to represent the concerns of marginalized and oppressed Black people who represent the voiceless presence in the present world order. In this chapter, I want to investigate the means by which these and other dramatic materials can be created in order to present and reflect an authentic theology of the voiceless.

In order to analyse the process that enabled me to create these pieces of drama (in addition to imagining the newer pieces that might emerge), I have sought to utilize concepts and epistemologies that arise from a range of disciplines.

Being in Solidarity with Those who are the Voiceless

One of the primary faults of many theologians and cultural commentators, who work on behalf of the voiceless, has been their inability to inhabit the “world” of those individuals and communities. Within historical and more contemporary discourse there has been a noble tradition of scholars speaking on “behalf” of and rarely “with” those who might be considered the voiceless. I have detailed some of these ongoing tensions in the first chapter of this book.

How can theology and the mission of the church speak with and enable others to find their voice, rather than speaking for them? In my area and context, I am aware that it has been a relatively recent innovation for Black scholars and authors to document the Black religious experience in Britain. Prior to the determined efforts of Black religious scholars to “name” their own experiences,¹ it was not uncommon to find the bulk of religious and cultural analysis of Black people undertaken by White European academics.

It is not my contention that those from outside of the Black experience cannot write accurately or act in solidarity with those who reside within an African and Caribbean framework. Such a contention, although espoused by some commentators,² is not one I wish to pursue at this juncture. As I hope to demonstrate shortly, talking about “insiders” and “outsiders” in the representation and analysis of any discourse is not a simplistic affair. It is made complicated by issues such as context, the ontology of the people under discussion and the positionality of the scholar attempting to document that particular phenomenon.

I want to eschew any seemingly simplistic notion of “outsiders” and “insiders,” which carry the restrictive refrain of essentialism and the notion of hard and fast boundaries that seem to “police” cultural experience and their accompanying production. As Lartey reminds, culture is a dynamic, human construction, which rejects any sense of fixity.³ In some respects, human beings are very different from one another, in terms of ethnicity, gender, class, geographical location or historical experience. Yet in other ways, the common experience of being human remains the ultimate unifying concept for all people. Lartey sums this up beautifully when he writes:

Every human person is in certain respects:

1. Like all others
2. Like some others
3. Like no other.⁴

Clearly, it is both difficult and, in some respects, dangerous to create fixed lines detailing who belongs to (and presumably can speak for) a particular group or community and who does not belong, with the opposite being the case. When I speak of scholars being in solidarity with the voiceless, I am conscious of the complexities and philosophical and cultural nuances at play, as I invoke this term. How can any scholar authentically live within the world of the voiceless?

My analysis of Black theology in the previous chapter was largely done by means of accessing the rich literature of largely African American scholars. While there is no doubt that scholars both identify with and consider themselves to be a part of the wider community and cultures of Black people in the US, to what extent can they be said to inhabit the world-view of those who are the poorest and most dispossessed of their number? Surely, the very fact that many of them are professors within the theological academy renders them a distant presence from the very subjects who might be described as being the voiceless?

Perhaps Victor Anderson is correct in reminding Black theologians of their ongoing tendency to collapse significant differences within the Black experience through their refusal to address significant issues aside from “race” and racism?⁵

Aspects of this seeming contradiction confronted me in a previous piece of work. When writing Faith, Stories and the Experience of Black Elders,⁶ I was conscious of the privileged position I occupied as a Black religious scholar. I was accorded the privilege of entering into the experiences of a group of Black elders, who, due to the pernicious, silencing tendencies of racism, have been rendered mute in post-colonial Britain. And yet, here was I, as a Black scholar, creating a book based on the silence of others! The irony was crushing.

The task of trying to act in solidarity with those who are voiceless is a seemingly impossible task. Writers such as Laurie Green,⁷ Kenneth Leech⁸ and John Vincent⁹ have attempted to inhabit and act in solidarity with those who are marginalized and oppressed. While there is a great deal that is commendable about the work of these scholars, I remain unconvinced about the extent to which the voice of the voiceless emerges from the pages of these very fine books. The writers speak for their subjects. I am aware that my comments may appear somewhat harsh and unfair.

How can the voiceless speak for themselves in a manner that will enable them to be heard? The academy works on the basis of text. Publishing remains the medium of choice for the articulation of new knowledge. How do we persuade the voiceless to write their stories? Do they want to write, and indeed, why should they? As I have intimated previously, I have been conspicuously unsuccessful in enabling the voiceless to speak for themselves in my past work.

What I hope to demonstrate through the facility of drama is that Black theology can be undertaken with voiceless, oppressed Black people, as a means of enabling them to discover and verbalize their authentic experiences. In order that this method for undertaking theology can reach its optimum potency, it is necessary that we create an appropriate mechanism for bringing the self-defined experiences of the voiceless to light. How can drama accurately reflect a theology that is both for and of the voiceless?

In short, how could I convert the often serendipitous developments of the dramatic pieces highlighted in the previous chapters into a consistent method for articulating a process of dramatizing theologies that ultimately can be owned by the voiceless?

Before I outline the methodological framework that has assisted me in this task, let me first outline, briefly, a number of factors that should inform this approach.

Preliminary Issues Prior to Being in Solidarity with the Voiceless

Critical openness

The concept of the term “critical openness” has, in many respects, become synonymous with the work of John Hull, who for many years was Professor of Religious Education at the University of Birmingham.¹⁰ I have referred to the work of Hull and his concept of “critical openness.” If the voiceless are to be enabled to discover their authentic selfhood, the educational processes within the overarching structure of theological discourse must contain an embedded commitment to this cause.

Black theology since its earliest inception has been in the business of constructing new ways of thinking about God in the service of Black liberation and wholeness of life. It has recognized that the Christian faith has always been policed and controlled. This can be seen by the use of creeds and concomitant denominational doctrinal standards. There has always existed a high importance attached to internal orthodoxy and consistency of belief. Emphasis has been placed upon the necessity to observe the orthodox truth claims of the meta-narrative. This naturally leads to the need for authority, training and education to expound upon it. Can the seemingly uneducated (in the eyes of White authority, that is) voiceless mass of Black people be trusted with this story?¹¹ Jeff Astley, speaking on the issue of lay theological education, states:

One gets the impression sometimes, not least from some clergy, that adult Christian education is a dangerous thing, that adult church members are to be protected from and indeed ministers themselves need to be protected from exposure to an educated laity.¹²

While Black theology has remained committed to articulating a view of God that challenges the top-down patrician conception of the Christian faith, we should be in no doubt that Black church practices need reforming in addition to those tendencies within White hegemony. As I have shown from my analysis of My God!?, patriarchy and androcentrism remain deeply embedded within Black religio-cultural practices. The radical freedom of Christ is often compromised within conservative social mores and restrictive doctrine. Grant Shockley details the means by which the Black church in the US has linked a conservative educational pedagogy to a top-down clerically dominant perspective of ecclesial life.¹³

In these contexts, the poorest, most disenfranchised, inhibited objects are still denied voice in favour of those who are better educated and more “respectable.”¹⁴ Beckford argues that one manifestation of an uncritical perspective on Christian tradition and the Bible is an enforced rigidity on issues such as jewellery (the prohibition on wearing wedding rings, for example) and women wearing hats in church.¹⁵

A number of scholars have asserted that a key component in the development of an inclusive, non-restrictive means of articulating Christian faith is by acknowledging the importance of “critical openness.” This term within the context of this study refers to a process of theological reflection that takes the autonomy of the individual seriously, and encourages them to engage critically with the inherited story and tradition. The Christian story is not necessarily a closed or a fixed entity.¹⁶

Pedagogy

The Roman Catholic religious educator James Michael Lee has challenged the neo-orthodox notion of reflection within Christian thought as being principally a theological and not an educational affair. He has been dismissive of pneumatological perspectives on Christian reflection, denouncing them as the “Blow theory.”¹⁷ It is interesting to note that, in the development of Black theology on both sides of the Atlantic, relatively little cognizance has been given to the need for effective pedagogy. Is pedagogy important? Relatively little of the aforementioned concerns are in evidence either in Black theological discourse or in the Black church, particularly in its efficacy with lay people. (Clergy, of course, need to be educated.)

Critical questions of pedagogy include the types of models we employ within Black theological discourse. Are these connected with inducting people into existing communities of faith? In this particular approach, emphasis is placed upon models of socialization that will assist individuals to learn the cultural, societal and religious frameworks that govern that particular community of faith.¹⁸ Alternative approaches include the faith/spiritual development model, a liberationist perspective (my own preferred model and one employed in this study) or the interpretative approach.¹⁹

In constructing a pedagogical framework for working with the voiceless, from where does one start? Who oversees the process? Where is the most effective location for this reflection and learning to take place, and what are the social norms for this construct? Are they inside, within, or beyond the church? These issues will be addressed in the latter part of this chapter and in Chapter 5.

Within the context of this study, particular attention has been given to the efficacy of attempting to work in a participatory manner. There has been much written on the importance of critical shared reflection as a means of undertaking theological reflection.²⁰ I was also cognizant of the literature, which while supportive of the general tenure...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction
• Act I Setting the Scene
• Act II Outlining the Drama
• Act III Detailing the Denouement
• Appendix: Template for Assessing our Gifts and Graces
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index