The kids table: African-Americans and global theology

Tonight I had the chance to go to a discussion on the conversation of global theology. The discussion comprised of five speakers who gave their perspective on various aspects of global theology. As I listened to the rich discussion of ideas, particularly feedback concerning the western theology versus those of the non-Western theology, I couldn't help but think about my own experience as an African-American. What I found that was interesting was that my experience particularly as an African-American was nonexistent in the Western versus non-western ideology. As I pondered on it further I couldn't help but make the connection to those large Sunday or holiday dinners where there's a large table for the adults to eat and discuss, while the kids table is off to the side. It is in light of this analogy that I would like to offer my thoughts on the African-American experience in light of this discussion. 

What is global theology?

This is a good question. I particularly like the answer that Tommy Givens gave when he spoke about the dangers of claiming a worldview, a theology or an ideology that seeks to claim the world in its entirety. This simply cannot be done. What I took away to be a global theology is the aspect that our theology is influenced and critiqued by a multiplicity of voices that represent various parts of the world, and no one voice claims to be dominant over the other (this sounds very postmodernist me now that I think about it). Global theology is allowing all of those voices to come to the table and to speak into the tradition that we have received from their own perspectives. 

A place at the table

This brings me back to the analogy. If global theology is a place at the table where goods and riches are shared equally and discussion includes everyone, then the African-American experience in light of the Western versus non-western ideology does not have a place at the table but is what I would call the kids table.

The kids table is a place in which the goods are shared (to an extent) but the participants are not allowed equal or any right into the discussion despite the fact that the implication of those discussions directly affects them. They are merely lumped together into the perspectives and ideologies of the "parent", despite the fact that they in and of themselves have their own perspective. 

Western versus non-Western

Before I go into the extreme dangers of this type of understanding of the African-American experience, I must take a look at what it means when we say "Western versus non-Western". This very notion came up in discussion after the panel and I resonate with the uneasiness of these categories. And so, I shall post my uneasiness with the question; could these categories of Western versus non-Western reinforce the pedestal of western theology even if only as a glorified villian? This is not to take away from the history of dominance and oppression that the Western theology has had on the rest of the world in any way, but I wish to merely point out this sweeping notion that occurs for both categories and that can cause problems if we continue to use them so distinctly, overlooking the complexities and messiness that they bring. 

My particular concern as it relates to the African-American culture is the fact that the African-American culture gets swept up into a western theology and in the sense is not only negated of its own voice but charged with the same notions and oppressions that it itself has experienced.  Is an African-American theology free from grasp and the temptations of a western theology? Of course not. It is, as Tommy suggests, the underbelly of western theology, that is, its development in the mist of the darkness and oppression that American western theology attempts to deny.  And it is this very position that places it in a particularly unique state to critique the western theology that it finds itself embedded in. It is, in a sense, the child that knows all too well of the family dysfunction but is unable to participate in lending their perspective because they have been both swept into the perspective of the parent and denied and under estimated as a result. 

I am sure there's a lot more to be said about this, but it is late and I'm tired so I'll just leave my final concerns and questions below:

1. In what ways do the categories of Western versus non-Western overlook the particular experience of African-Americans?

2. Do you agree with the fact that African-Americans have been placed at "the kids table" or do you think that African-Americans should even have a place in the discussion concerning global theology?

I guess my concern would be the preservation of the black prophetic tradition in light of these discussions. Not to say that other discussions are not important but I don't want the African-American experience to either get swept up as a subset of western theology or swept up as a subset of African theology, denying the double consciousness that has been the result of the re-created culture and life of Africans in America. This presents a whole range of messy questions that I am too tired to list here, but consists of the importance of the African-American experience on a global scale and the concept of allowing other voices have been denied to speak into the discussion (and then saying this I am thinking particularly of the non-Western experience, to use the language from tonight)

Okay that is all. Not sure if this makes sense to come back at me with your thoughts.