Rhetoric Race and Religion
“Radical Protestant public theology” is neither a misnomer nor a mistake. This claim contradicts the consensus dichotomy between “sectarianism” and “Constantinianism.” Public theologians consider it a misnomer because anything as particular and confessional as Radical Protestantism must be far too provincial to be viable in the wider public. Reinhold Niebuhr, the last great American public theologian, argued that Christian love is an “impossible ideal” impracticable by citizens. Ecclesial theologians consider it a mistake because anything as abstract and generic as public theology must be far too compromised to be recognizable as theology. Stanley Hauerwas, recently named America’s best theologian, has asserted that justice is a “bad idea” for Christians. Claiming otherwise, I insist that piety and publicity are not inversely correlated. To be public is not necessarily to be Constantinian. To be confessional is not necessarily to be sectarian. The relationship between Christ and culture, Church and world, civitas dei and civitas terenna is far more complex than received wisdom indicates. I argue for a theology that is neither naively for the nations as their apologist, nor rotely against the nations as their antagonist. I advocate a piety characterized by humble speech and generous action, at once sincere in its solidarity with the world and serious about its distinction from the world. The Radical Protestant public theology I envision is a form of Christian social criticism whose practical stance embodies both measured cooperation and mitigated opposition, and whose rhetorical style expresses both qualified affirmation and circumscribed condemnation.
That such a public theology is not widely in evidence is distressing, but not devastating. Cornel West is a provocative, albeit imperfect exemplar of the Radical Protestant public theology that I have in mind. His prophetic social criticism self-consciously mixes the theological commitments of Left Christianity with the political praxis of progressive Marxism. I realize that despite this my characterization of West is controversial. To identify West as a Radical Democrat, and even to count him as some kind of Left Christian is relatively incontestable. But to portray him as a theologian belonging to the Radical Protestant tradition is not. Indeed West himself may object as he consistently refuses the designation of theologian. My further claim that he succeeds in holding together in a single vision the supposedly dichotomous commitments of Radical Protestantism and Radical Democracy is decidedly contentious. All this notwithstanding, there are good reasons to consider West as a public theologian who is both a Radical Protestant and a Radical Democrat.
Read the rest here
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In