Monday, September 29, 2008

Practicing Liberation

Rebecca Chopp is also a feminist practical theologian, but liberation theology is more central in her work. Her early work, The Praxis of Suffering, focuses on developing a methodology for practical theology grounded in Latin American liberation theology and German political theology. As such, suffering becomes a primary referent along with gender in her work. Chopp has been accused of being more political than pastoral in her practical theology. Certainly she appears more political than Elaine Graham. Graham’s work, while emphasizing human flourishing, is clearly grounded in the pastoral work of the congregation. Chopp, in emphasizing justice and liberation, has moved beyond the confines of the local church into the wider society. Her practical theology has clear goals for changing structures in the here and now and creating liberating practices.
If, as most feminists argue, the personal is political, might one also argue that the pastoral is political? It seems that the political edge to Chopp’s work grows out of a pastoral concern for the flourishing of all people that cannot be limited to the local congregation. If one is to attend to issues of race and class in their practical theology, it seems essential to move beyond the local congregation. It is clear from sociological studies of evangelical churches such as Divided by Faith by Emerson and Smith that our churches have become racially divided and our emphasis on local communities has only served to further the race and class divides in our society. One’s practical and pastoral theology must have a political edge if it is to address these issues. Chopp’s ecclesiology focuses on the development of communities of emancipatory proclamation. Perhaps she is simply reclaiming the prophetic aspects of ministry that are so often lacking in our churches today.
As part of their commitment to the located and interested aspects of knowledge, both Chopp and Graham have a non-foundational approach to truth. All truth is seen as socially constructed. As such, Christianity becomes a socially constructed reality. In their practical theology, socio-analytic tools and theology are given equal weight. They use a hermeneutic of suspicion when approaching scripture and tradition. God seems to be reduced to a human construction rather than an active, living being. Is there a way to reclaim the role of God in practical theology without losing a commitment to feminism and liberation? It seems that a confessional approach moves in the right direction. Before addressing the confessional approach, though, one must ask where Chopp and Graham get their commitments to feminism and liberation. It seems that these commitments are foundational to their work, but from what foundation do they draw on? What in their methodology challenges others to make these same referents central in their work? Is it possible that the gospel can provide such a foundation?

No comments: