This essay is a reflection on a letter written by Rosemary Ruether, a feminist and theologian, and who at the time of this writing was a professor of Historical Theology at Howard University. The letter was directed to Sergio Torres and the Planners of the Theology in the Americas Conference held in Detroit in 1975.
The purpose of this essay is not to rehash what Dr. Ruether said in her letter, but rather to single out, so to speak, some of the issues which she addresses, and to challenge us to make a determination as to whether these issues still have relevancy for the Church and for the world today. The reader will make that determination of the basis of familiarity with those issues.
Ruether says "If Americans are expected to respond to the criticism of American posed by the theology of liberation, they must be able to find in this national language the resources to respond, by being able to recognize in the response of repentance that is called for, not merely judgment, but also the call to renew the covenant with their "truer selves;" to recognize this response as the true affirmation of their identity as a people who believe in "liberty and justice for all." This is not a question of being less critical of America! This is a question of giving people the positive basis of the alternate identity through which they can respond at all. If this basic psychological-historical reality is ignored in a misguided effort to be as apocalyptical as possible, the result will be that the language of liberty and justice in the American tradition will be ceded in advance to the FBI and the CIA, who will claim exclusive right to represent the "true Americans," and will use this language to convince people that great "enemies of America" are abroad in the land and new efforts of repression are necessary. In other words, the tone of this conference will repeat the mistake of the left of the later 1960's, which fed into a perfect symbiosis with the forces of repression. At the moment, thanks to Watergate, Americans are focusing on the true enemies of the Establishment. They are beginning to recognize that Americans have different interests from this leadership class. This is a time when they could be powerfully appealed to, to recognize that their own true identity should lead them to support or leave alone other people's liberation struggles. rather than intervene on the side of repression. But this can be done only if the criticism of these policies of the American empire also draws on an alternative positive image of what America should be. If the language that comes from the theology of liberation is only that of judgment of the Monster, and no call is given to an alternative identity that draws on their historical language of liberty, then the forces of repression have an easy time creating new paranoia and locating false enemies all over again. Only if American radicals return to the strategy of Martin Luther King, who always made his scathing judgment in the language of an alternative "dream", is there any possibility that his message will be heard, not just by a tiny alienated few, but by the larger masses of Americans. I suggest that resources, such as Robert Bellah's 'The Broken Covenant,' as well as theologians and American religious historians who can provide this dimension, be brought to the conference (Ruether in Eagleson and Torres, p. 87)."
Questions for your reflection.
1. What do you think of Ruether's recommendations in preparation for a conference of this nature?
2. Are any of the issues that Ruether mentions in her letter "alive and well" today? If so, which ones?
3. Is Ruether in your opinion, suggesting that in order for Christian theology to be genuine, that it must adopt the language of oppressive political and social systems in order to be rightly understood, or is she merely suggesting that the language should be "toned down" in order to avoid repression?
4. What, if anything, do you believe that Christ is saying to the Church today through the recommendations in Ruether's letter?
Your input is very important. Please respond.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
According to Wikipedia, Rosemary Ruether is still alive but retired.
ReplyDeleteI think she is saying that to promote a theology that supports liberation in other countries, it may be necessary to tone down the leftist rhetoric; otherwise, the US Government (during the Nixon Administration) will use that rhetoric to paint the liberation movement as Marxist and a threat to the US.
Furthermore, she is saying a theological movement that pushes political goals needs to use language that says not only what it is against but also what it is for. I believe that political candidates are most likely to be successful when they paint an attractive picture of life under the policies they support. Therefore, she is likely correct that the same holds true for a theological movement as well.
Gary Dudley
Gary: Thank you so much for your input. This contribution is extremely valuable. I think that your analysis is so "right on target." I'm very grateful that you did some research on Dr, Rosemary Radford Ruether. During my seminary years, she was one of the theologians who most stimulated me intellectually to engage with Liberation Theology. I so appreciate your engagement in this dialogue. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteJuan Carmona