Minority Perspective In Fuenteovejuna Theology
In particular, I am looking at González’s chapter on a minority perspective, and even further, as his section titled “Fuenteovejuna Theology”. The chapter argues the importance of a minority perspective when reading scripture in that it provides a different perspective and when differences converge, the church can better understand each other and the Bible as they find commonalities. In finding commonalities, a community is born; a community of responsibility and accountability. To which he links to the church: “if theology is the task of the church, and the church is by definition a community, there should be no such thing as an individual theology the best theology is a communal enterprise” (29). Since the individual human is fallen and depraved,
…show more content…
I am living in a community and one of the members is mentally ill. While she has all physical capabilities and most mental ones, she has a disorder which makes her act out in manipulative and hurtful ways. She greatly relies on the community around her to keep her functioning and safe. When the community fails, she becomes hostile and angry. I have often apologized for her actions towards others because I understand her sickness and understand apologizes need to be given and received though they are unable to come from her at the time they are needed. While this situation is unique, I can see similar ones playing out in the church, though I suppose not in regards to theology, directly, which you address: “the reason for calling attention to the story of Fuenteovejuna goes beyond a mere acknowledgment of indebtedness to colleagues and friends. It is also a call for a different style of doing theology” (29). But I wonder if this is possible. Yes, Christ died for all humanity. But the bible does not mean the same to everyone, as you previously explicated. So what works for one person, may not work for the group. And what may work for one group, may not work for another. The obvious solution to this is to get all the groups together and work out what they believe. That is both impossible, impractical, and already attempted by the
I am living in a community and one of the members is mentally ill. While she has all physical capabilities and most mental ones, she has a disorder which makes her act out in manipulative and hurtful ways. She greatly relies on the community around her to keep her functioning and safe. When the community fails, she becomes hostile and angry. I have often apologized for her actions towards others because I understand her sickness and understand apologizes need to be given and received though they are unable to come from her at the time they are needed. While this situation is unique, I can see similar ones playing out in the church, though I suppose not in regards to theology, directly, which you address: “the reason for calling attention to the story of Fuenteovejuna goes beyond a mere acknowledgment of indebtedness to colleagues and friends. It is also a call for a different style of doing theology” (29). But I wonder if this is possible. Yes, Christ died for all humanity. But the bible does not mean the same to everyone, as you previously explicated. So what works for one person, may not work for the group. And what may work for one group, may not work for another. The obvious solution to this is to get all the groups together and work out what they believe. That is both impossible, impractical, and already attempted by the