An Asian-American Renewal Historical Theologian’s Response to the Duke African-American Nouvelle Théologie of Race
In: PneumaSearch for other papers by Paul C.H. Lim in
Current site
Google Scholar
In this article I critically engage the Duke theologians of race—Carter, Jennings, and Bantam—devoting attention especially to Jennings. While appreciating and acknowledging the significance of these projects, I critique Jennings’s selective historiography and suggest that engaging the Anglo-American early modern supersessionist theologies of culture and race would have benefitted Jennings’ project. Then I trace out some implications of Jennings’s call to re-engage Israel and examine how his idealized vision of “submersion and in submission to another’s cultural realities” affects the notion of conversion theologically. As an Asian-American historical theologian, I argue that race is not and should no longer be looked upon as a black-white binary reality. In conclusion, I call for a historiographical fine-tuning of these theologies of race.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
1
J. Kameron Carter, Race: A Theological Account (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008); Willie James Jennings, The Christian Imagination: Theology and the Origins of Race (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010); Brian Bantum, Redeeming Mulatto: Theology of Race and Christian Hybridity (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010).
-
2
Jonathan Tran, “The New Black Theology: Retrieving Ancient Sources to Challenge Racism,” Christian Century 129, no. 3 (February 8, 2012): 24–27. For a similar contribution in this period and the reconfiguration of Christianity in particular, see Paul Lim, Mystery Unveiled: The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); Jonathan Sheehan, The Enlightenment Bible: Translation, Scholarship, Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).
-
7
Ibid., 36.
-
8
Ibid., 92.
-
9
Ibid., 100–101.
-
15
Ibid., 267.
-
16
Ibid., 266.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 308 | 101 | 24 |
| Full Text Views | 171 | 3 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 91 | 7 | 0 |
An Asian-American Renewal Historical Theologian’s Response to the Duke African-American Nouvelle Théologie of Race
In: PneumaSearch for other papers by Paul C.H. Lim in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
In this article I critically engage the Duke theologians of race—Carter, Jennings, and Bantam—devoting attention especially to Jennings. While appreciating and acknowledging the significance of these projects, I critique Jennings’s selective historiography and suggest that engaging the Anglo-American early modern supersessionist theologies of culture and race would have benefitted Jennings’ project. Then I trace out some implications of Jennings’s call to re-engage Israel and examine how his idealized vision of “submersion and in submission to another’s cultural realities” affects the notion of conversion theologically. As an Asian-American historical theologian, I argue that race is not and should no longer be looked upon as a black-white binary reality. In conclusion, I call for a historiographical fine-tuning of these theologies of race.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 308 | 101 | 24 |
| Full Text Views | 171 | 3 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 91 | 7 | 0 |
