All the things that racists had done to us, then, had strong biblical warrant” (p. In arguing that the Bible was errant, McCaulley recognized that mainline scholars were essentially arguing that the Bible was, indeed, the basis for a “white man’s religion”: “If the Bible needs to be rejected to free Black Christians, then such a view seems to entail that the fundamentalists had interpreted the Bible correctly. In introducing his book, McCaulley talks about how his early studies were shaped by a tension between the historic Christian faith of his mother and the theological liberalism of his professors whose “goal deconstruction” (p. In particular, his basic hermeneutical approach (how he reads and interprets the Bible) lacks the guardrails needed to prevent his methods from being taken in very dangerous directions. While McCaulley’s conclusions are good and theologically conservative, I couldn’t shake a vague uneasiness with how he derived those conclusions. In his book, he tries to articulate a fourth voice, one that is “unapologetically canonical and theological” but which is also “socially located, in that it clearly arises out of the particular context of Black Americans” (p. Reading While Black grew out of Professor Esau McCaulley’s dissatisfaction with what seemed to be missing from theological conversations that centered on “mainline Protestantism, Evangelicalism, and the Black progressive tradition”(p.
0 kommentar(er)
