Decolonizing Evangelicalism

An 11:59 p.m. Conversation

Randy S. Woodley, Bo C. Sanders

• Éditeur: Cascade Books
• Année: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781498292047
• Sujet: Teología y religión
• Sous-sujet: Teología cristiana

The increasing interest in postcolonial theologies has initiated a vital conversation within and outside the academy in recent decades, turning many "standard theologies" on their head. This book introduces seminary students, ministry leaders, and others to key aspects, prevailing mentalities, and some major figures to consider when coming to understand postcolonial theologies. Woodley and Sanders provide a unique combination of indigenous theology and other academic theory to point readers toward the way of Jesus. Decolonizing Evangelicalism is a starting point for those who hope to change the conversation and see that the world could be lived in a different way.

1

Was Jesus an Evangelical, or Even Perhaps a Postcolonial Theologian?

Bo: Since Evangelicalism is supposed to be all about Jesus, how do we understand Jesus in light of empire?

Randy: Jesus never became a Christian of any kind. That might sound funny or obvious, but it is an important point we should remember. Jesus was a first-century Jew who lived all his life under the occupation of perhaps one of the most oppressive and powerful empires in history. You might assume Jesus would have been affected by this powerful empire that was constantly bearing down on him, but instead Jesus displayed a remarkably decolonized mind. Jesus did not accommodate the Roman conquerors, except to include them, along with the rest of the cosmos, as potential recipients of the good news in a theology of salvation/healing. Jesus’ understanding of salvation/healing appeared to be much more holistic and all-encompassing than that of many of the people within his own religion at that time. Perhaps Jesus’ theology and worldview was larger in scope than the world his contemporaries could have imagined, a fact that would eventually lead to his death.

Bo: I noticed you use the words “salvation” and “healing” kind of interchangeably. Was that intentional?

Randy: Very much so. I think the word salvation has too much baggage to continue to be used theologically.

Bo: What do you mean by that?

Randy: Well, the word itself speaks of the illegitimate power claimed by the church, which, whether through force or influence, has held the world hostage to its demands concerning its ability to grant salvation or, if you will, paradise. If you hold the “keys to the kingdom,” you get to decide not only who gets in but what they have to do to get there. I don’t think Jesus ever intended the concept of salvation to be associated with that kind of illegitimate power. Only Creator has that power, and Creator offers it to everyone, regardless of their affiliation with the established church. Although I’ve studied the languages, I’m not a Hebrew or Greek scholar, but I have heard some scholars suggest that the word healing conveys a more accurate meaning than salvation in much of Scripture. I certainly believe it is a better theological choice. Healing is a process that requires our cooperation. I think of a few teachings like, “Now is our [healing] much closer than when we first began,” or when Jesus said, “[Healing] has come to this home today, for this man has shown himself to be a true son of Abraham.” Creator offers healing to the whole world—to the whole planet.

Bo: Are there other words you think are baggage-laden and need to be rethought?

Randy: Absolutely! I actually have a list. I think I’m up to about a dozen of what I consider to be harmful word constructs, particularly as they are used by Evangelicals. We form these social categories that become laden with bias. The Evangelical church has done that, and I think that, at minimum, it is time for re-verbiaging some of the language.

Bo: Re-verbiaging?

Randy: Yeah, I actually made that word up just now [laughter]. Anyway, are you ready for the list of words on which I’d love to issue a moratorium?

Bo: I hope so!

Randy: These are some of the words imbued with the baggage of Christian, and especially Evangelical, empire: God, Christian, Bible, kingdom, missionary, gospel, salvation, heathen, repent, sin, born-again, crusade, ministry, and especially, Evangelical!

Bo: Whoa! Those are some major concepts.

Randy: Absolutely, and the Evangelical church needs to make major changes, so maybe this would be a good starting place. Here are some suggestions for replacements or, as I said earlier, “re-verbiaging” [laughter]. And note, my suggestions are just that, my suggestions. There are likely other substitutions that work better than these, but these words reflect my own theology, which, I have to admit, is pretty simple. God becomes “Creator” or “Great Mystery”; Christian becomes “a follower of Jesus or the Jesus Way”; Bible becomes “Scriptures”; kingdom becomes “community of creation”; missionary becomes “ambassador”; gospel becomes “good news”; salvation becomes “healing”; heathen is thrown out completely; repent becomes “turn around”; sin becomes “mistake” or, when used as a verb, “fail”; crusade becomes simply “a meeting”; ministry becomes “service”; and Evangelical becomes “Jesus-woke.” It’s not rocket science; it’s just simply rethinking our biased categories that have fed into our poor theologies.

Bo: Wow! All I can say is, thanks for that, and I’m sure there will be some people who have a problem with it!

Randy: And there are a lot of people who have a problem with Evangelicalism too, right?

Bo: I can’t argue with that. Let me continue asking you about Jesus and empire.

Randy: Okay. So, in light of Jesus’ experience as one who never gave into the theologies of empire, we should ask again, what are these postcolonial-type theologies? Put simply, it seems to me that postcolonial theologies are all-inclusive theologies that decenter any empire-perpetuating force seeking to establish itself as superior to, and centered above, anyone and anything else. Postcolonial theologies, by their nature, should not only lift up the disenfranchised and marginalized but also restore theological equity and, to a degree, theological equality, which was displayed throughout the life and teachings of Jesus. Jesus refused to accept an assumed colonial existence. And he did not condone the goals of empire. In fact, Jesus’ whole life and message were resolutely set against empire. Because he was against empire, we may refer to Jesus as a (and perhaps the) foundational example of a postcolonial theologian.

Bo: How do you think understanding Jesus as against empire could be helpful to Evangelicalism?

Randy: Jesus, as seen through an Evangelical (imperial) Christian hermeneutical lens, is the savior of the world and one’s own personal Lord and savior. This particular theological lens has formed much of the basis of modern Western Evangelical Christianity and mission. In modern Evangelical theological interpretation, this very abstract narrative of Christ was used as a colonizing force, promoting imperial Christianity and removing the freedoms of many, many people, including Indigenous people all over the world. But to a degree, this narrow reading of Jesus as simply the savior limits everyone’s freedom.

Bo: How so?

Randy: We limit Jesus—or maybe a better way to say it is we try to control Jesus by limiting our theological image of him, and people who try to live for Jesus end up with a very limited imagination concerning what Creator expects and what is possible in our world. Evangelicals, often without meaning it, have become great at religious oppression. To be completely honest, I think that particular theological lens is a form of idolatry in that it re-creates God in our limited image.

Bo: Can you think of ways this has been done in the past?

Randy: Sure. That narrow focus of the church granting the dispensation of Jesus as primarily a savior and ticket to heaven who becomes the “conquering Christ” of empire, and then adapting its theology to become a missiology of empire, subjugated the very lives of Indigenous and other peoples around the world, who found themselves victims of Christian colonization. From early on Christian theology and missiology have had everything to do with the human use and misuse of power. Evangelicals know the gospel is supposed to be about love, but that kind of love cannot integrate with power; real love and power over the other is a true binary. In spite of the impossibility, the two strange bedfellows of love and power now seem to be almost always entangled in Evangelicalism’s theological and actionable reach. Love as expressed by Jesus and the use of power over others are simply incompatible. The juxtaposition of love and power is a false balance in light of the story of incarnation, the message given by Jesus and the life he lived. According to Jesus, power is to be given over to others who do not have it. The structured order, or government of God’s love, is not power over others but rather is based on the ancient system of shalom.

The Relationship of Shalom to Postcolonial Theologies

Bo: How do you understand shalom?

Randy: Shalom is an ancient Israeli construct concretizing practical love to be expressed through structures and systems. The structured order, or government of God’s love, is shalom and is related to the constructs in Scripture concerning Sabbath and Jubilee.

Bo: So, this is a big-picture idea?

Randy: Very big picture in that it is a construct in Scripture from beginning to end, and the kingdom of which Jesus taught is a shalom kingdom. Shalom is seen in the beauty and balance of the Genesis creation stories. Shalom, as seen against the background of God’s good intentions, is broken at almost every level in the stories of Genesis 3–11. These examples of broken shalo...