A Quote Worth Reflection

In case you didn’t know. Ben Myers’ blog is probably the best theological blog on the web.  One of the main reasons why is that many intelligent minds grapple with each other by commenting on Ben’s blog, one of the brighest being Kim Fabricius.  In the comments section of a recent post, Kim pulls out a great quote from Vinoth Ramachandra in his work Subverting Global Myths: Theology and the Public Issues Shaping Our World (2008), one worth pondering:

Why are North American or British or German theologies [and philosophies?] never named as such, but Indian or Latin American or African theologies are? Western theologies are simply assumed to be universal, but non-Western theologies are ‘contextual.’ The insularity of most Western theological institutions is astonishing.

This seems pretty spot on to me.  Agree/disagree?


4 responses to “A Quote Worth Reflection

  1. Thanks for your kind words!

  2. Ben,

    Thanks for stopping by! Is it wrong that i’m excited you did?

    In truth, I find that i read your blog twice as much as i think about my own, though i mostly lurk in the shadows of your comment section. I have learned a lot from those who regularly comment. It’s about as close to community that you could have in the virtual world i would think.

    Thanks for indirectly investing in my education, and please keep blogging!

  3. But isnt that true of Christian theology altogether.
    And white Westerners too, with their implicit arrogant presumptuousness that the white man was born to rule the entire world.

    Everything “other” becomes subjected to the dissociated and dissociative, and hence power and control seeking, Western gaze—-and hence exploitation and plunder.

    Also of the implicit and explicit presumption that Christianity is both the one true faith and the only universal “religion”.

    And that all other non-Christian forms of religion and Spirituality, and hence their cultural expressions are somehow, in one or another ways deficient.

    And hence need to be converted to the one true way—using whatever means that can be used.

  4. Sue,

    Thanks for stopping by. After reading your post, it sound like you’re coming from a very postmodern persepctive; i here a good bit of Foucault in your response regarding the use of knowledge/belief as a means of dominating others.

    I think that much of the Christian church is still trying to come to terms with this form of modernity run wild, but some have drunk too deeply from its wells already. it has much to offer the church to correct its erros, but ultimately it is bankrupt as a view in and of itself. Now let me address your comments.

    The problem with your statement is that it is self-referentially incoherent. I can only assume that your goal in posting was to show me the errors of Christian theology. However, your attempt to persuade me is in fact an attempt to dominate me in a way akin to the problems you have with Christianity.

    It seems to me that the sooner we heed the postmodern critique the better. However, “we are political creatures,” and it is naive to assume we will be otherwise. Maybe instead of resisting this tendency, we should instead ask if all forms of persuasion and all metaphysical beliefs are bad. I think the belief that all are is a poor assumption. I would affirm that loving one’s enemies and dying for them would be persuasive, but not harmful. Would you agree?

    Thanks for stopping by Sue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s