A Theology for Nonpersons

How can you tell me God loves me in a world that is so inhumane?

All theology is done from the perspective of a person situated in a particular context; no theology is ever genuinely objective. The late African American theologian Rev. Dr. Samuel K. Roberts (1944-2015) summarized,

God is beyond the limited perspective of human beings [and] all human perspectives of God, including one’s own, are indeed limited and perspectival.^[1]

Contextual theology can be found within the Bible itself. Consider the seemingly opposing views of the Apostles James and Paul regarding faith and works. James, likely viewing himself in the line of the Hebrew prophets, used the story of Abraham to emphasize that we are made righteous by works that follow from faith (James 2:18-26). Seeing himself as the Apostle sent to the non-believing Gentiles, Paul used the story of Abraham to emphasize that we are made righteous by faith and not by works (Romans 4).

These two positions are often seen as irreconcilable. Martin Luther famously called James’ writing the “epistle of straw” because it was worthless in his theological framework. Yet, both perspectives are true and easily explained by the contextual perspective of both authors. Theologian John Murray made sense of the two when he wrote,

Faith alone justifies but a justified person with faith alone would be a monstrosity which never exists in the kingdom of grace.^[2]

So, theology done from varying perspectives may arrive at different conclusions that are not necessarily opposed but, taken together, they enrich our understanding and shed greater light on the infinite knowledge of God, each perspective valued for its unique contribution.

Consider a modern example: it has been said that the White church enters the Bible through the rational logic of the Apostle Paul. In contrast, the Black church enters the Bible through the ethics of the Prophet Moses and the freedom of Israel from slavery. Not unlike the false paradox between James and Paul mentioned above, the White and Black churches are often at odds over theological expression and social ethics.

Like all generalizations, the following point breaks down quickly. However, it is often the case that the White church believes a myth of objectivity that says it is more important to know what is right than to do what is right. Conversely, the Black church has seen how such an emphasis leads to a passivity that justifies the unjust status quo. Like James, the Black church emphasizes that a faith without works is dead.

At times, these divides have run so deep that it has led to one side accusing the other of being a false faith.

I have considered similar theological divides regarding my neighbors in our urban community. Last year, I attended a major national Christian conference in my city held in a convention center less than two miles from my house. I was reluctant to attend, as I already had a sense that no material presented at this conference would center the needs of my context.

I decided to attend with an open mind. However, my intuitions were soon proven correct. As I walked through the many rows of vendors, not a single organization present would minister to the needs of my neighborhood's under and unemployed residents. No organization present could have helped me untangle the many-layered needs surrounding addiction, joblessness, immigration, lack of education, violence, and untreated mental health challenges. Not only were my neighbors not represented by the speakers and subjects on stage, but not a single book across dozens of tables from multiple publishers was written for my neighbors who were right next door to this conference.

My heart was cast down, and I was immediately filled with embarrassment, even shame – and my neighbors were not even with me. I struggled for months to put my finger on the divide between the dominant Western Christian perspective at this conference and the perspective of my neighbors. However, an old essay by Latino theologian Gustavo Gutierrez has helped me articulate the difference. Gutierrez wrote:

A good part of contemporary theology seems to have arisen from the challenge of the nonbeliever. The nonbeliever questions our religious world, and demands a purification and profound renewal… [here is] the incisive question we find at the origin of so many of the theological efforts of our day: How can we proclaim God in a world become adult, a world grown up, a world come of age?

In Latin America, however, the challenge does not come first and foremost from the nonbeliever. It comes from the nonperson. It comes from the person whom the prevailing social order fails to recognize as a person–the poor, the exploited, the ones systematically and legally despoiled of their humanness, the ones who scarcely know they are persons at all.

…Hence the question here will not be how to speak of God in a world come of age, but rather how to proclaim God as Father in a world that is inhumane.^[3]

Who we center in our theology – the nonbeliever or the nonperson – makes a great deal of difference for the kind of theology that we do.

Undoubtedly, much of Western theology and apologetics has been written from the educated middle- and upper-class perspective. As a result, this theology has centered on intellectual questions and the felt needs (purposelessness, loneliness, anxiety) of the middle-upper class. In addition, this theology has focused on the objections of the educated, middle- and upper-class nonbeliever, such as those concerning science, philosophy, and the absurdity of an old faith in a technologically advanced age.

However, these are not my neighbors' objections in our urban context. My neighbors have little difficulty believing that a God exists; their challenge is believing that any God would care about them. My neighbors have little difficulty believing that they are sinners; they cannot believe that forgiveness is possible. They have little difficulty believing that there may be a heaven, but how could this heaven be for them when the prevailing social order has convinced them they do not matter?

The secular challenges of nonbelievers are different from those regarded as nonpersons. Nonpersons question not the intellectual challenge of faith in a secular world but the challenges of existing in a world where the economic, social, educational, and political systems despise them and those they love.

This is why the Reformed missiologist Harvie Conn (1933-1999) said we need a gospel that speaks to the sinner and the sinned-against. He wrote,

My cultural background in white, North American churches had oriented me almost exclusively to seeing a person as the subject of sin. But not the object of sin…

…The gospel that ignores the sinned-against may work among the middle class, but it cannot possibly work among the overwhelming majority in Asia or the United States–publican peasants and workers. It conveys too much superiority, condescension, yes even pity, to be credible. What is missing is compassion. Compassion becomes possible when we perceive people as the sinned-against, as well as the sinning.^[4]

Similarly, the African American theologian Howard Thurman (1899-1981) stressed the need for a gospel that ministered to those with their “backs against the wall”:

The masses of men live with their backs constantly against the wall. They are the poor, the disinherited, the dispossessed. What does our religion say to them? The issue is not what it counsels them to do for others whose need may be greater, but what religion offers to meet their own needs. The search for an answer to this question is perhaps the most important religious question of modern life.^[5]

If the Reformed faith—or any theological expression of Christianity—is to impact the urban context, it must first center the needs of nonpersons in the urban context, the sinned-against, those with their “backs against the wall.”

Such a theology will be viewed as irreconcilable with the prevailing way of things because those who maintain the current order do not want to accept the implications of a theology for nonpersons. Such a theology will not be met with conference invitations and book deals. The prevailing unjust social order will dismiss a theology for nonpersons as “woke,” “progressive,” “CRT,” and the like.

Never forget that when Jesus announced his compassion for nonpersons, the dominant social and religious order tried to kill him (Luke 4:24-30). What’s a little pushback and rejection on our way to his kingdom?

---

^[1] Samuel K. Roberts, African American Christian Ethics (2001), 7.

^[2] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (1955), 131.

^[3] Gustavo Gutierrez, “Liberation Praxis and Christian Faith” in The Power of the Poor in History (1983), 57.

^[4] Harvie Conn, Evangelism: Doing Justice and Preaching Grace (1982), 47.

^[5] Howard Thurman, Jesus and the Disinherited (1996), 3.