CWM's Network of Theological Enquiry

Toward an adequate interpretational structure

We now return to the issue of the importance of one's perspective in the interpretation of the Caribbean context, in which reading and interpretation must be grounded. In her 1993 assessment of the Caribbean context, Sr Teresa Lowe-Ching lifts up Kortright Davis' identification of the main challenges to Caribbean life as persistent poverty, cultural alienation, and dependency. Having done this she indicates that it is very understandable that "the primary focus of Caribbean theology has been on the experience of the majority black population whose ancestors were torn from their native land, cut off from ancestral ties and cultural roots and, nevertheless, survived the most inhumane conditions."²¹

I now ask: is it that in responding to a context theologically the needs of the majority will have dominance, or does this declaration suggest that the intensity of suffering makes one group more liable to experience the maladies described? Does this suffering with its consequences give privilege in the perception and interpretation of context? Do these lead necessarily to the position that the understanding of Caribbean experience, which will influence Caribbean biblical hermeneutic, ought to be apprehended and interpreted through the prism of blackness? While I cannot be certain that this is the conclusion Lowe-Ching intended, it is certainly the direct implication of Barry Chevannes' insistence that Africa is the shaper of Caribbean reality. ²² These are matters that require some response in the interest of adequate Caribbean contextual theology.

Adequate response to the questions raised will be arrived at through analysis and continuous debate. My first level of response is to reflect on the fact of black majority. The black majority in the English-speaking Caribbean is due in significant measure to their preponderance in one territory (Jamaica). In two important territories (Trinidad, Guyana) the non-black population outstrips blacks. The vast majority of these are of East Indian ancestry, who even when evangelised were not subject to the same efforts as blacks were to expunge their particular sensibilities. A fair number are Hindu and a lesser number Muslim.

Certainly the intensity of suffering on the part of blacks has to be of significance in a theological orientation which speaks about God's preferential option for the poor. I contend, however, that any genuine attempt to respond sensitively to the whole context has to take seriously the local configurations. This means while attending to the apparent main theme in the story line, there must be resistance to a preoccupation that undermines sensitivity to the other voices. To his credit, Watty did show appreciation for this, indicating the necessity "to consider how de-colonisation applies to East-Indian religions of the southern Caribbean and what they can contribute to the emergence of a Caribbean theology."²³ He also recommended this for the Rastafarians as well.

Unfortunately he has not moved beyond this declaration made in 1973, and until recently no one had taken up the task. It would seem that those who resisted the domination of colonial Christianity, and privileged the particularity of the Caribbean region, have failed to come to terms with the particularities within the region itself. Those who in the 70s discerned the emergence of an interconnected Caribbean culture seem to have understood its character in terms of a Christianised black culture into which all others were being, or were to be included.

Until recently the path taken by Caribbean Christian theologians appears to have established the inevitability of Garvey's early insights. Here one recalls his declaration whilst our God has no colour, yet it is human to see everything through one's own spectacles. Here Garvey seems to be arguing for more than a situation in which persons of one or another particularity, immediately see as, as determined by that particularity. There is the suggestion that even after one has made rational/logical determinations, eg God has no colour, there is another framework of consideration with overriding influence, such that the outworking will still be in terms of a specifically chosen particularity. This leads to the logically contradictory notion that God who has no colour is black.

Given this assessment, one now surmises that what happened in the 70s and persisted until recent times, is that whereas religious intellectuals made assessments about the developing interconnection within the Caribbean context, their overriding commitment to black-Christian identity did not allow them to develop the appropriate framework to address the diversity of elements in this complex interconnection. It would not be far-fetched to suggest that what has hitherto been classified as Caribbean theology reduces to a kind of inclusive black theology.

Some might argue that it is the pursuit of contextual analysis in terms of class which identifies the poor as the point of departure for theologising that will broaden the scope of the theological system which arises. The practical outworking of theology in terms of liberation through development will also enhance solidarity across boundaries such as race, ethnicity or religion. It seems, however, that the neat categories of oppressor and oppressed, have served to obscure the challenging intricacies which texture the communal life of the different groupings in the Caribbean. This includes the underlying psychical and spiritual impulses, which both contribute to and are influenced by myth and sacred story.

Aside from, and in some cases far more than, social location and economic condition, these ground meaning systems foster theological orientations, and influence the posture to the wider community, even the interpretation of social location and economic condition. It is quite telling that even among poor, downtrodden Christians this orientation grounded in class analysis and emphasising liberation through development has not gained wide scale acclaim. These Christians often subscribe to the orientations that seem quite alien in many ways, except that they foster the climate for connection with yearnings that arise from the deepest levels of the soul.

Women like Lowe-Ching, Spencer-Miller and Ofelia Ortega remind us that the deficiency of this theological framework goes further. Lowe-Ching speaks of the near lack of reference to the experience of women in the formulation of Caribbean theology.²⁴ Spencer-Miller describes this as an attempt to fashion a neutered theology, which while biased against many forms of classism, is devoid of gender as an issue.²⁵ Ortega reminds us of commitments made in 1975 (International Women's year) to rectify this, but laments that in later writings on Caribbean theology there has been no reference to the contribution of women.²⁶ One needs to note also the lack of attention to ecological issues. Whereas the methodology borrowed from Liberation theology served us well in challenging the status quo on broad social and economic issues, it has served to maintain the theological status quo that has catered mainly to the purposes of black patriarchal Christianity.

At the strictly religious level, the proponents of Caribbean theology have generally not had second thoughts concerning the source of the concepts and symbols which could inform a possible Caribbean meta-narrative. Whatever have been the destructive consequences of colonial Christianity, and however radical the local response, the Caribbean story is still naturally and exclusively a Judeo-Christian story. Here one recalls Watty's suggestion that the Caribbean theological method should include stories or testimonies of lived experiences.²⁷ Boodoo has also spoken of the need "to recall the religious intuitions of our people, and to subject these to scrutiny for the purpose of articulating them through the symbols of faith and life."²⁸

So far the stories of Caribbean Hindus, Muslims and the rich complex of Afro-Caribbean religions have not been included. While critical of the move from accommodation to imposition on the part of the European missionary enterprise, the Christians who are proponents of Caribbean theology seem not to have absorbed in any significant way relevant images and metaphors from their sisters and brothers of other faiths. Neither has this theological orientation benefited properly and sufficiently from the texturing that could be provided by the unique sensibilities of Caribbean women. While stressing contextuality, there has not been the development of a philosophy/theology of interreligious relations, in a region rich in its plurality.

Looking to the future

How then do we address the issues at hand, to enable the Caribbean theological enterprise to more effectively inspire the people of the region to wholesome integrated living? I will not presume that if the momentum of the 70s had carried over into the 80s, the difficulties identified would have been addressed. In fact, the deficiencies could have become more entrenched. It now seems to me that the lull of the 80s, even if described as a lost decade, was a vital part of the dynamic of the Caribbean theological process.

Although there was not much formal deliberation, persons in the region did not cease thinking, and the fruits of quiet reflection are becoming evident. It now seems that the path forward is taking us backward, to revisit the early visions, only this time with new eyes which the 80s helped to create. It is clear (and this is very much in keeping with Watty's understanding of the theological enterprise), that the remainder of this century and beyond will be characterised by the insistence on the part of those who were previously quiet(ened), that their particular interpretation of Caribbean life is as vital as any other. They should at least help in naming and interpreting the local reality.

This group includes a younger generation of religious scholars who span gender and racial/ethnic divides, who are reaffirming that something unique has happened/is happening in the Caribbean, which constitutes us a particular people This is reflected in Spencer-Miller's notion of a Caribbean world view and experience²⁹ and as Boodoo describes our space of indwelling as Caribbean space, our space of confrontation.³⁰ Burton Sankeralli argues that "The radical point of departure for theology needs to be our own most Caribbean ontology, our own spiritual energy pattern. Here class analysis needs to be understood within the frame of a fundamental culture and ethnic analysis."³¹ There are even signs that some traditional Caribbean thinkers are willing to enter into enlightened engagement with those who represent the new spirit. In his keynote address at our January consultation, Williams faced squarely the reality of Caribbean pluralism, and proposed ways to approach the multireligious configuration. This, he suggests, should be carried out within the context of identifying "what is truly Caribbean culture".³²

Maybe the new and renewed voices will be able to move Caribbean theology beyond the confines of Garvey-like epistemology. It could be that Caribbean theologians have accepted that despite the compellingness of particularities like race, etc, somehow rationality can prevail and provide the impetus to privilege other values which engender a wider, more inclusive view. Or maybe this new breed which spans gender and ethnic lines is the incarnation of Russell's vision of the unique Caribbean Man. This would mean that Garvey's analysis might have been correct in principle, but his conceptions were too narrow and too static. Whereas Garvey (and many of the pioneers of Caribbean theology) perceived in terms of a black/African particularity, the new breed is perceiving in terms of an authentic Caribbean particularity. Whatever this new orientation represents, it clearly involves the appreciation of unity in difference, the celebration of the multi-layered personality/community, and a positive embrace of creative conflict.

New directions

We now look at a specific area of conflict that gives some concrete indication of the future of Caribbean theology. Watty had asked that Caribbean theologians make a distinction between the ideas we develop from our reflections on God, and God who is God.³³ He had hoped that there would be profound reflections on the notion of God who is God, but I believe this was hindered at the time by the anxiety over the possible distraction of metaphysical reflections from the material circumstance of the poor. I believe Caribbean theologians are now required to tackle this notion, this having implications for the nature of the Caribbean spirituality which under girds Caribbean theology. At the January consultation, Lewin Williams argued that pluralistic sensitive efforts in theology ought to be grounded in radical monotheism. This involves the idea of a single centre in human existence in which systems and cultures relate. Belief in this one centre, which is a "God who is not Christian", is also to believe that all things can relate to one another because they are already related to the common source of their being.³⁴ Here a significant cleavage is likely among Caribbean theologians.

In responding to Williams, Sankeralli showed some sympathy for his intention. However, he asked challengingly if Caribbean people are ready to break with Christocentrism, as radical monotheism entails. I presume that Christocentrism is the equivalent of what some refer to as Christian exclusivism. This challenge is quite pertinent, because having indicated that the theocentrism which results from radical monotheism disallows the absolutising of any single value system, Williams repeats without sufficient qualification the claim attributed to Niebuhr that it is Christ who reveals to humanity what human relationship to God the Centre can be like. Sankeralli retorts: this is great if you are a Christian but it need not apply to a Hindu or Muslim. To say otherwise is in reality a Christocentric position, to call this theocentricity is intellectually dishonest. Sankeralli proceeds to warn against the using of radical monotheism as a reductionist tool "to collapse religious-cultural-ethnic difference". Monotheism, he indicates, is simply a label to talk about what is really indescribable.

It is obvious that Sankeralli is wary of traditional Christian conceptions/categories that have undergirded even the more radical Caribbean theological formulations. He calls for space "to explore our own Caribbean terminology".³⁵ Boodoo is not far behind, as he makes his call to Caribbean people "to find our space of confrontation with the unconditioned, with God, even beyond God". It soon becomes clear that both he and Sankeralli are seeking to move Caribbean theological reflection away from transcendental categories. He suggests that perhaps the real reflection is not theology as such (as logos about theos), but more the attempt to express the fracture of theos in our Caribbean psyche.³⁶ Claiming inspiration from India and Africa, Sankeralli speaks of a move from monotheism to cosmotheism in which "the energy and pattern of the cosmos ­ the totality of relation ­ discloses divinity."³⁷ One glimpses points of connection with Tillich's ground of Being, but Sankeralli does not desire his thought to be linked with theoretical systems such as this. He wishes to explore his ideas within the context of a distinctive Caribbean philosophy, which would deal not only with the western legacy, but the complex insights of Africa, Asia, and the local Amerindian culture.

This is not the place for deep exploration into the above notions, but I will highlight some immediate observations. It is clear that Boodoo and Sankeralli have distanced themselves not only from Williams, but also from the theism that has to this point undergirded Caribbean theology. Many will dismiss their ideas as tending toward a kind of Culture Religion which has denied itself not only of the transcendental aspects of Christianity, but also of the very Indian and African spirituality which Sankeralli claims as inspiration. They also seem to have taken away the traditional foundation of hope argued for by Watty, Russell and others, which is grounded in the idea of a sovereign personal God, who not only intervenes to save, but ultimately has a plan that is effected, even by way of the pretentious behaviour of arrogant colonisers. It is exactly because this God is beyond the vicissitudes of ordinary existence and not subject to human machinations that He can be trusted. Their positions also conflict with the feminist vision for the Caribbean as expounded by Ortega.

This vision is grounded in the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, which she understands to be "the expression of interdependency, loving and mutual relationship, a paradigm of authority and community."³⁸ Sankeralli's cosmotheism is antagonistic to orthodox trinitarianism that involves necessary internal relations between co-eternal beings of the Godhead. Though distinguishable, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, enjoy full inter-penetration of each other, and are substantially one. By their pronouncements, both Sankeralli and Bodoo seem to deny substantial individuated existence, maybe even ultimacy, to what has hitherto been perceived as the Godhead. Ortega's trinitarianism will not find greater compatibility with Williams' radical monotheism. Despite talk of a single source of our being, and a common centre on which to hinge human relations, the logic of radical monotheism does not allow for the mutuality of CO-eternal, inter-penetrating beings provided for in trinitarianism, and which Caribbean women (as represented by Ortega) consider a more appropriate model for the reorientation of the oppressive mentality of both patriarchy and colonialism.

Whatever is ones position on these issues, they are clear signs of the times which suggest that Caribbean theology is in the process of making a metaphysical turn. For a long time Caribbean theologians proceeded as if there were general agreement on the conceptual presuppositions to our theological declarations. It is becoming obvious that this is not necessarily the case. The picture is now compounded by the ¨new breed' of complexly bred Caribbean's, who in their embrace of the richness of their context do not feel constrained to foster unity through the avoidance of conflict or the subsuming of all perspectives under neat and familiar categories. There could now be the fear that Caribbean theologians will become so engaged with sorting out conceptual issues that they neglect the concrete. But this does not have to be. A positive way to view this challenge is in terms of different schools of thought within a broad philosophical/theological framework.

The Caribbean framework would not be Christian. Instead, it would allow for a variety of perspectives, apart from and within the Christian school of thought. Some will be more theoretical in orientation, others more practical. The vigorous dialogue, even contestation, will test the quality of concepts and ideas and the consistency of arguments, enabling mutual refinement and the cross-fertilisation of ideas, thus enhancing the capacity of each to contribute to Caribbean life. The important thing will not be that all agree on everything, but that it is Caribbean people(s) who will be struggling together with integrity to make sense and foster progress in their common context. This interaction would be governed by basic criteria of contextual sensitivity and responsibility, and non-impositionism.

Conclusion

Present developments suggest that this will be quite an exciting process as the face of what is called Caribbean theology shifts and changes. Caribbean thinkers will have to deal with the full implications of what Watty referred to as the partial and provisional nature of every theological formulation. Maybe we are already at the place where the term Caribbean theology, given its history, is too narrow and static for what is developing. Instead we might need to think in terms of perspectives on Caribbean theology. As exciting as the local dynamic is, Caribbean thinkers must guard against isolationism. As Caribbean thinkers with confidence in the integrity of their perspective(s) engage critically and discriminatingly the wider field of theological ideas, their methodology/methodologies will be further refined, and they will be able to contribute to the development of the general theological enterprise.

Endnotes

1 Boodoo, Gerald, A Response to Adolfo Ham Gregory, Howard (ed.), Caribbean Theology: Preparing for the Challenges Ahead. (Canoe Press, University of the West Indies, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, 1995), p.9

2 Schrieter, Robert J, Constructing Local Theologies, (Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York, 1985) p 2ff.

3 Watty, William, Decolonisation Of Theology, Hamid, Idris (ed.), Troubling of the Waters, (Rahaman Printery Lt, Lewis St, San Fernando,Trinidad, 1973) p 63

4 Williams, Lewin, Invigorating the Caribbean Theological Enterprise: Learning from the Past, Forging a Path to the Future. (Unpublished paper, presented at consultation on Caribbean Theology, Jan 1998

5 Garvey, Amy Jacques, Essien-Udom, E U (Eds) More Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey Vol. 3, (Bourne Press, Bournemouth, England, 1977) pp 13-14

6 Garvey, Amy Jacques, Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey Vols. 1&2, (Athenaeum, New York, 1974 (6th print)) p 44

7 Moore, Robert, The Historical Basis of Theological Reflection, Hamid, Idris (Ed), Troubling of the Waters, (Rahaman Printery Ltd, Lewis St, San Fernando, Trinidad, 1973) p 41

8 Watty, William, From Shore to Shore: Soundings in Caribbean Theology, (Golding Printing Services, 106 East Street, Kingston, Jamaica, 1981) p 3

9 Russell, Horace, The Challenge of Theological Reflection in the Caribbean Today, Hamid, Idris, Troubling of the Waters, (Rahaman Printery Ltd Lewis St, San Fernando, Trinidad, 1973) p 25

10 Watty, William, Struggling To Be, Mitchell, David (ed.), New Mission for a New People, (Friendship Press, USA, 1977, quoted from Williams, Lewin, Caribbean theology, (Peter Lang, New York, Washington etc, 1994) p 62

11 Watty, From Shore to Shore: Soundings in Caribbean Theology, p 9

12 Sobrino, Jon, Ellacura Iguacio (eds.), Systematic Theology, (Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York, 1996) p ix ff, referenced from Taylor, Burchell, Engendering theological relevance (Unpublished paper delivered at consultation on Caribbean Theology, Jan 1998) p 4

13 Watty, Decolonisation, Troubling of the Waters, p 70

14 Taylor, Engendering Theological Relevance, p 8

15 Lowe-Ching, Theresa, Method in Caribbean Theology, Gregory, Howard, Caribbean Theology, (Canoe Press, University of the West Indies, Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, 1995) p 27

16 Spencer-Miller, Althea, A response to consultation text Caribbean Theology from Caribbean Journal of Religious Studies Vol .16 #1, April 1997, pp 33-34 17 Watty, Decolonisation, Troubling of the Waters, p 70 ff.

18 Watty, From Shore to Shore: Soundings in Caribbean Theology, p 35 ff.

19 Taylor earned his PhD in New Testament Studies. He however, has expended much effort reflecting on Ethical issues. He now seems to be giving more attention to scholarly Biblical work. In 1995 his congregation published his work The Church Taking Sides, which is a contextual reading of the letters to the seven Churches in the book of Revelation.

20 Spencer-Miller, A Response, Caribbean journal, p 4

21 Lowe-Ching, Method, Caribbean Theology, p 25

22 Chevannes, Barry, Our Caribbean Reality, Gregory, Howard (Ed), Caribbean Theology, (Canoe Press, University of the West Indies, Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, 1995) p 65

23 Watty, Decolonisation, Troubling of the Waters, pp 69-70

24 Lowe-Ching, Method, Caribbean Theology, p 29

25 Spencer-Miller, Response, Caribbean Theology, p 32

26 Ortega, Ofelia, Women and Caribbean Theology (Unpublished paper delivered at consultation on Caribbean theology, Jan 1998), p 3

27 Watty, From Shore to Shore: Soundings in Caribbean Theology, p 10

28 Boodoo, Response, Caribbean Theology, p 8

29 Spencer-Miller, Response, Caribbean journal, p 34

30 Boodoo, Response, pp 10-11

31 Sankeralli, Burton, A Response to Lewin Williams (Unpublished paper delivered at consultation on Caribbean theology, Jan. 1998), p 2

32 Williams, Invigorating, p 10

33 Watty, From Shore to Shore: Soundings in Caribbean Theology, p 14

34 Williams, Engendering Theological Relevance, p 12

35 Sankeralli, A Response to Lewin Williams, p 4

36 Boodoo, Response, Caribbean theology, p 12

37 Sankeralli, A Response to Lewin Williams, p 4

38 Ortega, Women and Caribbean Theology, p 3