Insightful and important conversation that impacts our, and every, cultural movement. Can we learn from each others good moments, good writings, and good deeds without cancelling the person when we see their sins and flaws? If not, let's begin by casting the first stone at our self.
A good word! Perhaps the patriarchal narratives can help here as well. Without stories steeped in the sociocultural context of the ANE and characters with all their moral failings, our picture of God would be "flat." We learn from both the moment and the long narrative. When we cancel we lose it all.
There was an aspect of Cone that revealed the transformation through women like Delores Williams. Rather like what Fiere and bell hooks had where the women were engaged as equals and a humility to be corrected.
I’m not sure Cone is the right comparison to Yoder. Yes I know he submitted to the discipline process, but as Hauerwas notes that took a lot of encouragement. I’m just not convinced JHY saw his behavior and theological justification as a problem.
Not canceling JHY, though, means his work is engaged in the midst of his biography not apart from it. Same with Cone, we see the work you quoted within the context of his life. This is why it’s easier for historians to engage problematic writers than it is say for…theologians 😂
my bro. I think we're on the same page. But why center JYH? Cone is an illustration of how moral failure of the past should not be erased but read more closely, discerned carefully, to understand how we should read these theologians with abuse in their histories? Your words "Not canceling JHY, though, means his work is engaged in the midst of his biography not apart from it"... are essentially a summary of the article. So can you tell me what exactly you're trying to nuance here? Otherwise, I'm kind of thinking you agree with the post?
When you say "This is why it’s easier for historians to engage problematic writers than it is say for…theologians." I would agree ... and add on to that "Biblical scholars" ... who with a flat epistemology, lacking cultural thickness ... cannot see how canceling only perpetuates the ills which the theologian was shaped by. Anyways.. thanks for chiming in my good bro!!
Not trying to center JHY by any means. There is an aspect of the Cone quote that reveals a patriarchy embedded within a culture. His decision to leave the language is both revelatory of the patriarchal frames within his culture and thought and also fits his overall argument about whiteness. In that sense its a helpful (and I mean that positively) rhetorical move.
I will say, however, that JHY is a good example of a difference between active violence/abuse and the antisemitism of Luther or the sexism of Cone. So my original comment started in my head as "Cone's sexism is not a fair comparison to the sexual violence of JHY, David Haas, or others." (However, the uncritical insertion of the language of antisemitism and sexism can legitimize the physical harm of Jews and Women.)
There are merits to "canceling" living authors however... take for instance David Haas. 1) It takes the royalities out of their pocket (a kind of personal boycott) and 2) keeps them from being platformed to places where they can continue their abusive patterns.
Yo.. just one more thought on your comment. I'd be interested in your take. The idea of "a difference between active violence/abuse and the antisemitism of Luther or the sexism of Cone." Zizek, playing off Walter Benjamin, made this argument about objective violence versus subjective violence, where subjective violence was actual physical, verbal, other material abuse, while objective was the systemic, ideological abuse done as part of a culture. system, ideology. Objective violence was what made possible the justification of subjective violence. The uncovering of the power dynamics, ideologies, justifications, of objective violence was much more difficult that the subjective violence ... it seems this is what Cone is getting at ... and what you're highligting... and is so important in this "erasing' discussion.
Is that in his little “Violence” book? It’s been a while since I read that.
I think it sounds right. We might add Butler too- the objective violence is what makes it possible to “not grieve” others. There are brutally obvious examples of objective violence in war propaganda (like is on display at the holocaust museum in DC- who by the way start with Luther’s anti-semitism and draws direct lines to Nazi propaganda.).
right ... I think what you're saying ... is a double down on my argument?? ... that erasing an author, especially an author of profound influence within a tradition and society ... Barth, Luther, Yoder and even King ... can only function within a historical process ... and so, for sure there are significant differences between all of these figures, but this is my point, they must be read and discerned .. not be glossed over in the rush to (or rejection of any) erase. I think these discussions are really important ... for the ongoing work of theology and justice ... Cone is an exemplary case of the what's, why's and how's in doing this ...
Add Edwards, Whitefield and Wesley to the list. This comports well with Sean McGever's new book, _Ownership_.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1514004151?ref=d6k_applink_bb_dls&dplnkId=bffe1844-b6ba-42f4-ae16-93c76720cd0b
Insightful and important conversation that impacts our, and every, cultural movement. Can we learn from each others good moments, good writings, and good deeds without cancelling the person when we see their sins and flaws? If not, let's begin by casting the first stone at our self.
A good word! Perhaps the patriarchal narratives can help here as well. Without stories steeped in the sociocultural context of the ANE and characters with all their moral failings, our picture of God would be "flat." We learn from both the moment and the long narrative. When we cancel we lose it all.
There was an aspect of Cone that revealed the transformation through women like Delores Williams. Rather like what Fiere and bell hooks had where the women were engaged as equals and a humility to be corrected.
I’m not sure Cone is the right comparison to Yoder. Yes I know he submitted to the discipline process, but as Hauerwas notes that took a lot of encouragement. I’m just not convinced JHY saw his behavior and theological justification as a problem.
Not canceling JHY, though, means his work is engaged in the midst of his biography not apart from it. Same with Cone, we see the work you quoted within the context of his life. This is why it’s easier for historians to engage problematic writers than it is say for…theologians 😂
my bro. I think we're on the same page. But why center JYH? Cone is an illustration of how moral failure of the past should not be erased but read more closely, discerned carefully, to understand how we should read these theologians with abuse in their histories? Your words "Not canceling JHY, though, means his work is engaged in the midst of his biography not apart from it"... are essentially a summary of the article. So can you tell me what exactly you're trying to nuance here? Otherwise, I'm kind of thinking you agree with the post?
When you say "This is why it’s easier for historians to engage problematic writers than it is say for…theologians." I would agree ... and add on to that "Biblical scholars" ... who with a flat epistemology, lacking cultural thickness ... cannot see how canceling only perpetuates the ills which the theologian was shaped by. Anyways.. thanks for chiming in my good bro!!
Not trying to center JHY by any means. There is an aspect of the Cone quote that reveals a patriarchy embedded within a culture. His decision to leave the language is both revelatory of the patriarchal frames within his culture and thought and also fits his overall argument about whiteness. In that sense its a helpful (and I mean that positively) rhetorical move.
I will say, however, that JHY is a good example of a difference between active violence/abuse and the antisemitism of Luther or the sexism of Cone. So my original comment started in my head as "Cone's sexism is not a fair comparison to the sexual violence of JHY, David Haas, or others." (However, the uncritical insertion of the language of antisemitism and sexism can legitimize the physical harm of Jews and Women.)
There are merits to "canceling" living authors however... take for instance David Haas. 1) It takes the royalities out of their pocket (a kind of personal boycott) and 2) keeps them from being platformed to places where they can continue their abusive patterns.
As for flat epistemologies.... agreed.
Yo.. just one more thought on your comment. I'd be interested in your take. The idea of "a difference between active violence/abuse and the antisemitism of Luther or the sexism of Cone." Zizek, playing off Walter Benjamin, made this argument about objective violence versus subjective violence, where subjective violence was actual physical, verbal, other material abuse, while objective was the systemic, ideological abuse done as part of a culture. system, ideology. Objective violence was what made possible the justification of subjective violence. The uncovering of the power dynamics, ideologies, justifications, of objective violence was much more difficult that the subjective violence ... it seems this is what Cone is getting at ... and what you're highligting... and is so important in this "erasing' discussion.
Is that in his little “Violence” book? It’s been a while since I read that.
I think it sounds right. We might add Butler too- the objective violence is what makes it possible to “not grieve” others. There are brutally obvious examples of objective violence in war propaganda (like is on display at the holocaust museum in DC- who by the way start with Luther’s anti-semitism and draws direct lines to Nazi propaganda.).
right ... I think what you're saying ... is a double down on my argument?? ... that erasing an author, especially an author of profound influence within a tradition and society ... Barth, Luther, Yoder and even King ... can only function within a historical process ... and so, for sure there are significant differences between all of these figures, but this is my point, they must be read and discerned .. not be glossed over in the rush to (or rejection of any) erase. I think these discussions are really important ... for the ongoing work of theology and justice ... Cone is an exemplary case of the what's, why's and how's in doing this ...
You should probably provide that chapter on Tillich because it's not readily available ($123 on Amazon) and now I am curious!