Black liberation theology was a radical movement born of a competitive time.
By the mid-1960s, the horns of Jericho seemed about to sound for the traditional black church in the United States. Martin Luther King Jr. was yielding to Malcolm X. Young black preachers embraced the Nation of Islam and black intellectuals sought warmth in the secular and Marxist-tinged fire of the black power movement.
As a young, black and decidedly liberal theologian, James H. Cone saw his faith imperiled.
“Christianity was seen as the white man’s religion,” he said. “I wanted to say: ”˜No! The Christian Gospel is not the white man’s religion. It is a religion of liberation, a religion that says God created all people to be free.’ But I realized that for black people to be free, they must first love their blackness.”
Dr. Cone, a founding father of black liberation theology, allowed himself a chuckle. “You might say we took our Christianity from Martin and our emphasis on blackness from Malcolm,” he said.
“material success without guilt.” Its interesting to note this, given that many black ministers reflect the aspirations of the people they minister to.
The focus on the here and now without an eschatologic view is the same flaw that plagues the “theology” of Schori and co. That is not to say that Christians shouldn’t try to right social wrongs. Also, I am not sure that this article captures the nuances of African American Christianity; I suspect that there is more to it than what is written here.
“You might say we took our Christianity from Martin and our emphasis on blackness from Malcolm,†he said.
Oh, and our ideology from Marx.
It is also a racist “theology”. I thought Obama had the election in the bag until the Rev. Wright hate speech became public knowledge.
The Gordian – which Marx? Das Kapital? Or his Theses on Fuerbach? Communist Manifesto? Or the manuscripts? I’ve never read a black theologian write about the labor theory of value. Although, the notion of alienation has been used in Black Liberation Thought, as has elements of Hegelian dialectic thought. But to be honest MOST black liberation theology comes out of the social Gospel. And it is not of one set (I suggest Dwight Hopkins sourcebook if you’re interested).
Are you making a serious statement, or a slanderous one?
Sick and Tired: I’m not sure what you mean by “racist” in this context. It’s not supremacist. It’s not sectarian. It believes – contra Malcom – that Christianity makes a difference to black people: as people who have been hurt by whites. Not only that, in practice it builds bridges most African-Americans don’t have: its a church that includes Africans, Caribbeans, Brazilians. It’s more diverse than most “white” churches. I went a few times to that church. It was pretty amazing, and people were very welcoming. I wouldn’t have had a problem being a member there. But I’m not a congregationalist.
If anything, Cone has a more existential rendering of “blackness” that surpasses color (I’m guessing you actually read James Cone). You’d only get that if you’d read Cone after reading German philosophy first. Modern German philosophy. Not just Marx, but Heidigger, et al. It was also written at the same time that Winthrop Jordan wrote White Over Black – which conveyed some of the same material, but in a historical fashion.
All I’m saying, Sick and Tired, is that racism is slander. And it is offensive.
#5: considering the comedy that is developing, probably Groucho.
But if you want to play that outdated game of ‘Younger Marx vs. Older Marx’, maybe I’d plump for ‘stuck in 1848’. I can’t think of any theologians (or theoideologues like Cone) who actually understand economics (or many politicians, for that matter). But there are good reasons why the Roman Catholics have repudiated ‘liberation theology’, even while this lives on wanly in a few seminaries and university faculties (often the last places ‘to get it’).
Not racism? Not racism? Ok, how does this sound…White majority theology…is that racist? I think it is. Why label it as “White”? Why is there a need to racially identify the theology. If it were just “Liberation Theology” I wouldn’t have a problem. The racism is inherent in the label. Black liberation theology. It’s racist.
Black liberation theology, as explained by Dr. Cone himself:
[blockquote]“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.â€[/blockquote]
That is absolutely RACIST! It is vile hate speech and it is what Rev. Wright is all about.
I don’t accept the David Dukes of the world and I sure won’t accept the Rev. Wrights of the world either. This is basically a black version of StormFront.
If this isn’t a supremacist world view…
“Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.”
…then it is genocidal.
Shame on anyone defending this vile hate speech!
Sick and Tired, I can see your point. But when Cone speaks about the “white community” he is assuming that the white community is that community which is intrinsically hostile to any sort of black expression.
You also don’t seem to understand the goals of the black community. It’s pretty clear what they are: loving in spite of a culture that disparages blacks. Second you don’t get the very careful statement assuming that all whites are the enemy: no – the category of whiteness that stands over and above blackness is the enemy. Not white people. If you had read even the very first chapter of the book you would understand some of his assumptions – which could be critiqued – but undermine your simplistic, and inaccurate view, that the theology is racist. Look – I have some philosophical issues from an analytical perspective: I would interrogate his concept of whiteness a bit. But given he is talking from a historical perspective, I buy his analysis of how white theology has generally let white people off the hook when it comes to the very present racism. Our job is to kill the racist Gods – that is the task of Black liberation theology.
I don’t think you read the book, Sick and Tired. And looking at the number of whites who have actually read the book (including, say, the lutheran historian Martin Marty), I’m going to go with those who try to read the books well.
Second – if white theology and black theology were equivalent, I’d totally agree. But a church that accepts ONLY white people – historically – goes out and justifies violence against whites.
But Black Liberation churches (at least Jeremiah Wrights) enjoy the presence of those whites who attend. It’s a big difference. Have you read the book? Or are you content with snippets from those who are telling you its racist.
Gordian – I’ll have to agree. Most do not understand economics, and you answer indicates some knowledge of Marx.
Although I wouldn’t read marx on economics, I don’t think he was wrong about industrialization or about alienation of labor, as concepts. These are ideas that other sociologists have tried to grapple with, and more recently, economists are computing when the calculate happiness. If you are looking for a few reasonable theologian economists, I’d suggest Katherine Tanner who wrote a pretty good book recently (she’s kind of a Keynesian – and definitely not a liberation theologian). And I’ve found Bill McKibben (Deep Economics) quite fascinating as someone who’s been giving a comprehensive, selfconsciously Christian view of our current economic and ecological situation.
I’ll toot my own horn: I wrote a long review on recent books in economics for the ATR that was published last summer.
But as far as Cone goes, I think the rhetoric of simply calling him “marxist” is a cheap shot unless you get specific. Better to say that “Finding one’s identity in blackness is undermined by the real economic choices people make, and imprisons those blacks who do not want to claim that identity as primary to their self-consciousness.”
[blockquote]”But when Cone speaks about the “white community†he is assuming that the white community is that community which is intrinsically hostile to any sort of black expression.”[/blockquote]
No, I don’t think so. What he said was:
“All white men are responsible for white oppression.” Black Theology and Black Power, p. 24
Cone defends black racism:
“It is important to make a further distinction here among black hatred, black racism, and Black Power. Black hatred is the black man’s strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it…But the charge of black racism cannot be reconciled with the facts. While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism.” Black Theology and Black Power, p. 15
Cone is a black supremacist:
“To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!” Black Theology and Black Power, pp. 139-140
[blockquote] I don’t think you read the book, Sick and Tired.[/blockquote]
Ok, you got me. I didn’t read his book. I don’t own a copy of his book. However, in the interest of full disclosure, I have not read Mein Kampf either and I do not own a copy. I don’t think I need to in order to be able to determine if it is racist and vile hate speech.
As an American with European ancestry, I find Cone’s ideas repugnant and offensive. By both extrapolation and in their own right, Rev. Wright’s comments are also repugnant and offensive.
BTW, I have researched my family history on the North American continent back to 1635 and there is no record of my ancestors owning slaves. My maternal ancestors were anti-slavery for over 150 years before it became fashionable…and they suffered persecution for it. [Research the Rogerine Baptist sect in Connecticut.] My wife is 3rd generation Irish. You know what…I am not responsible for the racism that has occurred and if a “black†person hates me because I am “whiteâ€, that person is a racist.
I’ll say it again: Shame on anyone defending the vile hate speech of Black liberation theology!
You’re angry at me for defending it. Alas, I don’t think its hateful. I do think its a big challenge for whites, however. As evidenced by your reading. Racism is a difficult thing to confront, I know. Most whites don’t want to be called racist, probably even in 1969, when the book you wrote was written. Do you remember 1969? It was written in the midst of the riots, after MLK was assassinated. Blacks were Angry at white people.
First of all, “All white men are responsible for white oppression.†Black Theology and Black Power, p. 24
I’m not sure you you read it. As someone 1/2 white, I do think I’m responsible for the ease with which my whiteness allows me to not worry about being judged. And in 1969, I think that whites should have been more responsible for oppression and acknowledge it. Some did and changed. Good for them. Granted, I read black power about 20 years ago, quickly. It was after reading lots of other stuff. It didn’t strike me as dated, although the anger was legitimate.
You say, Cone defends black racism:
“It is important to make a further distinction here among black hatred, black racism, and Black Power. Black hatred is the black man’s strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it…But the charge of black racism cannot be reconciled with the facts. While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism.†Black Theology and Black Power, p. 15
This is not a defense. He’s defining his terms. Black hatred is based on resentment, anger at being humiliated, and being oppressed. White hatred is based on the idea that blacks are inferior. Theoretically, however, some blacks have argued for moral superiority, given the brutality of slavery. I don’t agree with such a view myself, but it was popular among abolitionists in the early 19th century.
Cone is a black supremacist:
“To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!†Black Theology and Black Power, pp. 139-140
No more than the bible believes in Jewish supremacy.
I don’t think you really understand Cone. His use of Blackness is a bit more plastic than you assume. It is a bit more complicated, even, than color.
I would get in touch with your inner black person, Sick and Tired. You might then understand what he means. As I said, I think you’ve read the end of his argument, rather than what led up to it: a close reading of the exodus story and a retelling of the history of black people.
He might argue – perhaps wrongly – that only the oppressed are truly chosen by God. This is one reading of the Exodus story. It may or may not be right, but it is a legitimate reading of the bible, especially as it is how most Blacks are Christians – as people who found strength in Jesus Christ to survive the intense brutality of the system.
I should add, however, I think there are serious problems with Cone’s theology. I think he isn’t consistent with how he uses the universal in contrast with the particular. I also distrust his understanding of “discourses” of the oppressor. But these are fairly academic, which I know I could argue in a seminar.
Cone says in an interview, “I do not contend that blackness is the appropriate term for all historical situations of oppression and liberation. I only contend that theology must be particular and thus indigenous with the oppressed community so that universal affirmations about liberation are relevant to the historical experiences of the wretched of the land.”
He also notes that his concept of blackness and whiteness are directly linked to the oppression of blacks by whites. He begins rooted in the very practical, real social events of this country to understand universal categories.
Personally, what I find interesting – and problematic – is how he moves from particular to universal. But I would not call him a racist.
I still think that Black liberation theology is racism.
To make the point, let us engage in a simple thought experiment. Let us exchange the words “black” and “white” in the statements by Cone and see if they are racist. We will start with a single simple sentence:
[blockquote]The statement, “All white men are responsible for white oppression†[b][i]now becomes[/b][/i] “All black men are responsible for black oppression.†[/blockquote]
To me, both statements seem racist. Let’s try another:
[blockquote]“To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!†[b][i]now becomes[/b][/i] “To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen white people!â€[/blockquote]
Okay now, no question about it, that is racism. Let’s try some of the longer statements:
[blockquote]“It is important to make a further distinction here among black hatred, black racism, and Black Power. Black hatred is the black man’s strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it…But the charge of black racism cannot be reconciled with the facts. While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism.†[b][i]now becomes[/b][/i] “It is important to make a further distinction here among white hatred, white racism, and White Power. White hatred is the white man’s strong aversion to black society. No white man living in black America can escape it…But the charge of white racism cannot be reconciled with the facts. While it is true that whites do hate blacks, white hatred is not racism.†[/blockquote]
These statements are absolutely racist. The second statement, our thought experiment one, could have come from the KKK, neo-Nazis, or StormFront. The first statement, the one we based the thought experiment on is equally racist and equally offensive and is not somehow magically OK because it is from Black liberation theology!
Let’s do the same experiment with what I consider the most vile statement from Cone:
[blockquote]“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.†[b][i]now becomes[/b][/i] “White theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the white community. If God is not for us and against black people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of white theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the white community … White theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the black enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in White Power, which is the power of white people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.â€[/blockquote]
These statements are utterly racist, vile and repugnant. There is no justification for them. I hope anyone can see that now. Just by switching the words black for white and white for black, one should readily see how racist the statements are. Black liberation theology is fudamentally racist. The fact that it came about during a period of oppression does not change the fact that it is racist. European Jews were the subjects of genocide, yet they have not developed a theology that is framed as anti-german or anti-european.
By the way, as a Caucasian male born in 1963, I never participated in slavery, segregation, or institutional discrimination of the African-American community. Yet, I have been subject to and discriminated against by Affirmative Action, a form of institutional racism, for most of my life. This arguably narrowed my educational and work opportunities. There has been a systematic effort to indoctrinate me into a collective guilt for things I never participated in or even had a say about; slavery, segregation, and the institutional discrimination of the African-American community. I have also been coerced by the power of government into paying exorbitant taxes for 3/4ths of my life to support a Welfare State which, while well intentioned, exacerbated poverty and the destruction of nuclear families disproportionately in the African-American community. [Out of wedlock births in the African-American community are nearly double the rate of the overall population.] I have done my best, within the law, to stop supporting the Welfare State, which is so destructive to our nation. I have voted consistently toward that end. I have written letters to newspapers and my representatives. I have given money to lobbying groups and even participated in political rallies to end the Welfare State that has so hurt the African-American community and the rest of the nation.
The point is that I believe that Caucasian males of my generation have been oppressed by minorities in this country through official government sanctions against us. We have been discriminated against because of the color of our skin and we have also been the subjects of a massive involuntary transfer of wealth to minorities. This massive transfer of wealth [$5.4 Trillion], called the War on Poverty, not only failed in its goals, it made things worse. This same massive transfer of wealth has and will have generational consequences for Caucasians; every bit as much as slavery has had generational consequences for African-Americans.
I long for the day when people are “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”. Black liberation theology is at odds with Dr. King’s dream.
Black liberation theology is racism, plain and simple.