Customer Reviews

A Black Theology of Liberation (Ethics and Society)

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Cone offers a radical reexamination of Christianity from the perspective of an oppressed Black community, dealing primarily with the notion that "white" theology cannot be accepted by African Americans, unless it can be directly related to "black" freedom from oppression. "Black" and "White" do not necessarily relate to skin pigmentation but to "one's attitude and action toward the liberation of the oppressed black people from white racism". Blackness is thus "an ontological symbol for all people who participate in the liberation of man from oppression". Seen in this light, "blackness" can be attributed to people who do not have black skin but who do work for the liberation of African Americans. By contrast, "whiteness" in Cone's thought symbolizes the ethnocentric activity of "madmen sick with their own self-concept" and thus blind to that which ails them and oppresses others. Whiteness, in Cone's view, symbolizes sickness and oppression, and White theology is therefore viewed as a theological extension of that sickness and oppression. Cone emphasizes that there is a very close relationship between black theology and what has been termed "black power". Cone says that black power is a phrase that represents both black freedom and black self-determination "wherein black people no longer view themselves as without human dignity but as men, human beings with the ability to carve out their own destiny." Cone's theology asks the question, "What does the Christian gospel have to say to powerless black men whose existence is threatened daily by the insidious tentacles of white power?" He says Black Theology is derived from "...common experience among black people in America that Black Theology elevates as the supreme test of truth". To put it simply, Black Theology knows no authority more binding than the experience of oppression itself. This alone must be the ultimate authority in Black religious matters. Cone's book, A Black Theology of Liberation has been labeled as revolutionary because it claims that White theology has no relevance as Jesus Christ's message because it was "...not related to the liberation of the poor." It also asserts that "racism... is found not only in American society and its churches but particularly in the discipline in theology, affecting its nature and purpose." Cone rejects any form of Christianity that defends the oppressive status quo. He argues persuasively that the God of the Bible is first of all, a God of the poor and of those seeking freedom from oppression. Cone feels that what was needed was a "fresh start" in theology that would rise out of the black struggle for justice, and be in no way dependent upon the approval of white academics or religious leaders. Cone contends that theology grows out of the experience of the community; the community itself defines what God means. Western European theology serves the oppressors; therefore, theology for African Americans should validate the African American struggle for freedom from oppression and for justice. Cone argues that God must be on the side of oppressed Black people and presents the concept of a black God, with the words: "To say God is Creator means... I am black because God is black!" He claims that the preaching of God's Word, the teaching of God's love for mankind, love for one's neighbor, and forgiveness are spoken with a "white" interpretation. Although Cone admits that the teaching of brotherly kindness may have slightly helped his cause, dhe attacks the hypocrisy of white theologians who preach love, yet do nothing to ease the oppression of blacks. Cone states that the sole purpose of God in black theology is to "illuminate the black condition so that blacks can see that their liberation is the manifestation of God's activity". He reconciles the objections of some that proclaim the need of a more universal God in Black Theology; he replies that God is universal, He is Black. One of the more controversial aspects of Cone's Theology is his view that Jesus, too is black: "The `raceless' American Christ has a light skin, wavy brown hair, and sometimes - wonder of wonders - blue eyes. For whites to find him with big lips and kinky hair is as offensive as it was for the Pharisees to find him partying with tax collectors. But whether whites want to hear it or not, Christ is black... with all of the features which are so detestable to white society".

While being a step forward in the process towards Black Liberation, Cone is unfortunately misinformed concerning certain biblical aspects about which he speaks. For instance, he claims that God chose the Israelite people when he saw their suffering in Egypt. Based on this assumption he takes this one step forward and states that for this reason, God now identifies with the blacks, because of their oppression. However, God's covenant with Israel stretches back generations before they ever entered Egypt, and before they were ever oppressed.

Cone's claim that any who dare to critique his theology are simply revealing the racist nature within themselves, is sad. Gustavo Gutierez also wrote a book of Liberation Theology, he deemed it his love letter to God, in which he denounced all sorts of corporate powers and establishments. Cone hates people, white people. Gutierez despises the institutions that have brought us to this period of hate. There is a difference here, and a difference worth noting.

A Black Theology of Liberation offers a fine, classic text in black theology from a well-known theological voice in North America. This provides a radical re-appraisement of Christianity from the perspective of the black community in North America, appeared some forty years ago, and today holds the same strength of purpose and mind as it did upon its first publication. The perspective, that any message not related to the liberation of the poor is not Christ's message - will prove eye-opening to many and this pick is recommended not just for spirituality shelves, but for any Afro-American collection.

This book offers a wonderful insight in Black Liberation Theology and James Cone's heart and mind in the late 60's.

Is this a racist work or not?

While some have argued that Cone's symbolic (ontological) use of "blackness" and "whiteness" allows us to interpret his work as not an essentializing (phenotype-based) racist project (to use Omi and Winant's definition), I see not only his explicit reference to blackness as a "physiological trait" (footnote 5 on p. 204), his historical references to what have traditionally been figured African-American (phenotypes) in his pantheon of heros (p. 27), his historical references to what have been traditionally figured as phenotypically "white" list of American political oppressors (p. 56), his use of traditionally phenotypically based epithets "honkey" (p. 15) and "whitey" (p. 12), to essentializing propositions such as "minds incapable of black thinking" (p. 8) and his utter refusal/failure to cite any example of anyone who once was white but became black, but his discussion of color and colorlessness furthers the phenotypical (and thus essentializing) dichotomy with which his vision of division is rife.

Moving away from the symbolic binary of Black vs. White as Good vs. Evil he indicates that "Whites can not move beyond particular human beings to the universal human being because they have not experienced the reality of color." (emphasis his - p. 86) Whiteness resides in "the color of their skins... [and] there is little evidence that whites can deal with the reality of physical blackness as an appropriate form of human existence" (p. 14 - emphases mine). The essentializing is not limited to color alone (though that is one essential part) but goes to the core of humanity itself. When Cone asserts that "The biblical concept of image means that human beings are created in such a way that they cannot obey oppressive laws and still be human" (p. 93) he is again making an essentialist argument about human creation. He reinforces the phenotypical blow of this latter claim by noting that "white young persons who are moving against their elders for one of the first times in American history... do appear to be quite human at times." (p. 94) While whites can appear human, they are still not. Cone further distances himself from any universalizing possibility when he argues that "Jesus is not a human being for all persons; he is a human being for oppressed persons..." (p. 85 - 86) Whites thus become trapped and forever isolated from blacks, they will always be a part of the oppressor community, no matter what they may appear to be. This essentializing has a Heideggerian tinge to it - whites-in-the-world cannot escape being oppressors (and therefore inhuman): "It is not possible to transcend the community; it frames our being because being is always being in relation to others." (p. 97) Rather it is "whiteness' which is "the source of human misery" (p. 101), something easy to do since whites (again, phenotypically defined) are not human.

For Cone, Whites cannot claim oppression, they cannot claim to be oppressed. Cone couches their conversion in the language of possibility - but never actuality. It is a theoretical notion, never to be realized: "The basic error of white comments about their own oppression is the assumption that they know the nature of their enslavement. This cannot be so, because if they really knew, they would liberate themselves by joining the revolution of the black community. They would destroy themselves and be born again as beautiful black persons." (p. 103) Cone then immediately goes on to emphasize (as do Omi and Winant) the group nature of oppression - sin becomes communal (pp. 104 - 106), as it is for the children of Israel who have no individual salvation, but only a collective one. Thus while individual whites may try to be redeemed (black) they cannot because they are part of an oppressor collectivity, a relation that can only be destroyed in theory - not in actuality. Ultimately Cone is not even interested in the voices of these inhuman devils - they have no place at the table, by virtue of their essential whiteness and societal embeddedness: "Oppressors... cannot speak about or for the oppressed." (p. 108). Cone seeks to silence all contrary voices which might challenge his Theology of Black Liberation (reversal intended). Universalists (like Aristotle, Anselm, Descartes, or Kant) are readily dismissed as irrelevant (p. 83) and ultimately oppressive. Cone's rhetoric, which stifles dialogue and calls for the ultimate in oppression (killing oppressors - p. 51) removes voices from the table which might enhance or enrich our understanding of the relationship between race and religion.

His frequent explicit rejections of universality in chapter 5 serve as an ironic counterpoint to the claims that his methodology (or content) is universalizing. Clearly he does not intend it to be so. I believe he succeeds in not universalizing, in fact - I think he has successfully rejected even a universal methodology. Despite the six adulatory commentators' failure to note the impact of his hate-filled screed/rhetoric on the failure of his theological project (or to include potentially divisive voices like those of queer theorists or black South African theologians who have struggled for a universalist understanding of the human condition), I believe Cone has succeeded in rejecting universals; for him 2+ 2 = 5 (he is no slave to white mathematics or white logic). His dichotomous, binary world of irrational polarities allows him to defy logic itself with contradictory claims and obscure argumentation. In this "success" (to de-universalize) he failed to gather others to support him. The supreme irony is that he has reaped the harvest of his divisiveness only to wind-up co-opted as a required reading text in the elitest halls of Theological Schools (or the Liberal Academy). I am very interested to see if anyone is familiar with a contemporary "white supremacist" theological vision to rival or match Cone's racist, essentializing rhetoric. While I think it would make for equally loathsome reading as the Cone bowel-dropping, I would find it interesting to compare rhetorical strategies (de-universalizing, advocating violence, demonization of the Other, etc.) and examine whether contemporary white supremacist racism would be accepted (as of historical or cultural or theologically significant) and taught in the academy as is the black supremacist racism embodied by Cone's (toned-down) 20th Anniversary Edition of his theology of black liberation. But I suspect that such voices would also be suppressed by Cone and his few surviving champions in the academy, the churches, and the schools of theology.

This is a well written book which explains how Afro-Americans are able to take Marxist ideology and hammer it into a "religion." If this is a religion, what is a political party? Take out the perfunctory lip service to "Christ" and you end up with a nice racist jihad against whitey.
If this guy's theory is valid, all "oppressed" people on this planet are entitled to create their own "religion" to cloak their racial attacks on some other race. Didn't the Nazis say they were oppressed by the WWI allies and the Jews? If only they could have read this book first, they could have called their political party a religion instead. Maybe they coud have called it Nazi Liberation Theology.

This book was very well written. It was very informative. The shipper shipped the package quickly. My mother was required to read this for a theology class that she is taking

I would recommend all Christians to read this book. James Cone is a bold man, and his approach to this topic is worrying and even concerning. But, if he does not address the issues who will? It sets one's mind to think beyond the limits.

Just so you know it's not necessarily about race and or color, for this exists in the eyes of those who see nothing but color all around them. It's about the strategically changes that Christians ought to employ to successfully reach those who have otherwise experienced God or Christianity in a negative way. It's a great book to read and have in your home library.

My book came in on time and great condition, that's all the doctor ordered and that is all I needed.

Worked with this book for a group presentation on Black Liberation Theology, and it is the standard for this genre of theology. Cone was tired of theology only being looked at from an Anglo perspective. This theology tied in well with the Black Power movement of the 1960s, an offshoot of the Civil Rights movement that was tired of turning the other cheek to white oppression. This book clearly outlines how to look at the bible from the perspective of someone who has been in bondage for 400 years. While I do not hold to this view of theology, it did help me understand this viewpoint much better than before. B
Joseph Dworak