'Freedom Faith: The Womanist Vision of Prathia Hall' by Courtney Pace | Book Discourse

[@mr.e2962]

Look at the works of Jeremy bentham and John Stuart mill on utilitarianism, it connects to feminism and civil rights perfectly.

[@theblackponderer]

Yes, John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" and "The Subjection of Women" is upcoming on this channel.

[@JoshuaKaluba]

I love love love the constant deconstruction of the channel's name that's been going on for years now aha

[@ThatBigFail]

Wish the intro would be a little more quiet

[@theblackponderer]

Sorry, that's how I get my jollies.

[@netscrooge]

I like how this relates to our first conversation. To put it in a nutshell, I'm saying that C. S. Lewis is slave-master theology.

[@theblackponderer]

Remind me, how is C.S. Lewis' theology akin to slavery? You said because his theology is less about the literal interpretation of the Bible and more about the thematic storytelling aspect? How does that relate to slavery?

[@netscrooge]

Thank you for remembering an aspect of our first conversation, but liberation theology isn't about literal versus storytelling. If we could circle back to a book you and I have both read, it has more to do with the foreground/background issue in Plumwood's framing. Slave-master theology inverts the Gospel's foreground/background. C. S. Lewis ultimately does that too, pulling power into the foreground and pushing process into the background. While it's possible to embrace both Lewis and liberation theology at a superficial level, they are in conflict at deeper levels. In the end, believing in Lewis's God is like believing the myth of the benevolent slave master and the underlying myth of redemptive violence.

[@theblackponderer]

@@netscrooge How does Lewis do that? What specifically does Lewis say which indicate a master/slave narrative? I don't understand. In what way does Lewis pull power into the foreground and process into the background? And how is this power/process dynamic akin to slavery?

[@netscrooge]

You've read "The Problem of Pain." You've also read "Feminism and the Mastery of Nature" and "Freedom Faith." I would invite you to hold them next to each other instead of approaching each text individually. It might be helpful to also include Cone's "The Cross and the Lynching Tree." After holding them together, if you still feel Lewis is compatible with the other authors, you might try immersing yourself further in Baldwin's thinking: “Sentimentality, the ostentatious parading of excessive and spurious emotion, is the mark of dishonesty, the inability to feel; the wet eyes of the sentimentalist betray his aversion to experience, his fear of life, his arid heart; and it is always, therefore, the signal of secret and violent inhumanity, the mask of cruelty.” I would call C. S. Lewis a sentimental theologian, but I hate to elevate him by calling him a theologian. I see him more as a confectioner who made his living sugar-coating the existing slave-master theology.

[@theblackponderer]

@@netscrooge Yeah, you're still not demonstrating to me exactly how Lewis' theology is akin to slavery. I mean, you're saying it is but your not demonstrating how. You're referencing other sources but not showing how they relate to what Lewis was talking about. Can you cite a direct quote from Lewis or reference a specific idea from Lewis, himself, that demonstrates how what he's saying is comparable to slavery?