With the publication of his two early works, Black Theology & Black Power (1969) and A Black Theology of Liberation (1970), James Cone emerged as one of the most theological voices in North America. These books, which offered a searing indictment of white theology and society, introduced a radical reappraisal of the Christian message for our time. Joining the spirit of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr., Cone radically reappraised Christianity from the perspective of the oppressed black community in North America. Forty years later, Cone s work retains its original power, enhanced now by his reflections on the evolution of his own thinking and of black theology.
A Black Theology of Liberation - Fortieth Anniversary Edi...
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
Review
Twenty years ago, when the civil rights and "Black Power" movements were at their peak, James Cone introduced a revolutionary theology based on the African-American experience of oppression and the quest for liberation. The book brought a new perspective to theology in the United States. 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 their struggle for liberation and justice. In seven brief chapters, he argues passionately that God must be on the side of oppressed black people and develops the concept of a black God, noting: "To say God is Creator means ... I am black because God is black!" The anniversary edition recognizes Cone's contribution to U.S. theology with a 50-page section of critical reflections by six leading theologians including Gayraud Wilmore, Robert McAfee Brown and Rosemary Radford Reuther. Cone responds to these commentaries in an afterword. The foreword points out Cone's influence on Latin American liberation theology. The interplay among text, commentaries, afterword and preface provides a lively discussion and analysis of developments in black liberation theology over the past two decades. The book should be read for the clarity with which it demonstrates the relationship between theology, oppression and liberation, and for its historic importance in raising the consciousness of its readers about the possibility of viewing God from a black perspective. Anyone concerned about U.S. social history, liberation theology and racism will find the book of interest. It is particularly suitable for university and seminary libraries. --Indepenedent Publishe
About the Author
James H. Cone is Charles A. Briggs Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary, New York City. His many books include Black Theology and Black Power, God of the Oppressed, The Spirituals and the Blues, and Martin & Malcolm & America.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
29 of 39 people found the following review helpful
By D. Kristof
Format:Paperback
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".
9 of 12 people found the following review helpful
By R. Borneman
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
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.
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.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
Format:Hardcover
James Hal Cone (born 1938) is the founder of Black Liberation Theology, a Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary, and author of books such as Black Theology and Black Power, God of the Oppressed, Black Theology: A Documentary History, etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1970 book, "It is my contention that Christianity is essentially a religion of liberation... Any message that is not related to the liberation of the poor in the society is not Christ's message... Christian theology must become Black Theology, a theology that is unreservedly identified with the goals of the oppressed community and seeking to interpret the divine character of their struggle for liberation."
For Cone, the role of Black Theology is to tell black people to focus on their own self-determination as a community by preparing to do anything which the community believes to be necessary for its existence. (Pg. 41) Black Theology "rejects the tendency of classical Christianity to appeal to divine providence." (Pg. 44) Black Theology is only concerned with that tradition of Christianity "which is usable in the black liberation struggle." (Pg. 74)
He argues that the wrath of God is the love of God in regard to "the forces against his liberation of the oppressed." (Pg. 133) Moreover, Black Theology is suspicious of people who appeal to a universal, ideal humanity, because "the oppressors are ardent lovers of humanity." (Pg. 156)
Cone's book is more than 40 years old; but while some of its tone may seem to have been a "product of its time," other insights are still a piercing as they were in 1970.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1970 book, "It is my contention that Christianity is essentially a religion of liberation... Any message that is not related to the liberation of the poor in the society is not Christ's message... Christian theology must become Black Theology, a theology that is unreservedly identified with the goals of the oppressed community and seeking to interpret the divine character of their struggle for liberation."
For Cone, the role of Black Theology is to tell black people to focus on their own self-determination as a community by preparing to do anything which the community believes to be necessary for its existence. (Pg. 41) Black Theology "rejects the tendency of classical Christianity to appeal to divine providence." (Pg. 44) Black Theology is only concerned with that tradition of Christianity "which is usable in the black liberation struggle." (Pg. 74)
He argues that the wrath of God is the love of God in regard to "the forces against his liberation of the oppressed." (Pg. 133) Moreover, Black Theology is suspicious of people who appeal to a universal, ideal humanity, because "the oppressors are ardent lovers of humanity." (Pg. 156)
Cone's book is more than 40 years old; but while some of its tone may seem to have been a "product of its time," other insights are still a piercing as they were in 1970.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
3.0 out of 5 stars
Book itself came as advertised, but the content of the book left a bit...
This book, in my understanding, was one of the first and most important attempts at putting down on paper a cohesive black liberation theology. Read more
Published 4 months ago by Joe
2.0 out of 5 stars
Some good thoughts on a bad foundation carried out inconsistently
James Cone is one of the big heavies in Black Liberation Theology. It's kind of an offshoot of Liberation Theology, made popular in South America, which began when South American... Read more
Published 5 months ago by David Cook
4.0 out of 5 stars
Knowledge is power.
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
Published 17 months ago by isiskia
4.0 out of 5 stars
Wow!
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. Read more
Published 19 months ago by Forrester
5.0 out of 5 stars
Fast service and great condition
My book came in on time and great condition, that's all the doctor ordered and that is all I needed.
Published 20 months ago by Nina
3.0 out of 5 stars
black religious militancy
Dr. Cone is brilliant in his narrative, but be prepared to deal with his hostility towards Caucasian
Christianity. Read more
Christianity. Read more
Published on March 18, 2011 by johnfitz44
5.0 out of 5 stars
This pick is recommended not just for spirituality shelves, but for...
A Black Theology of Liberation offers a fine, classic text in black theology from a well-known theological voice in North America. Read more
Published on February 13, 2011 by Midwest Book Review
4.0 out of 5 stars
Cone in the late 60's
This book offers a wonderful insight in Black Liberation Theology and James Cone's heart and mind in the late 60's.
Published on October 6, 2010 by Andrew F Stockstill
3.0 out of 5 stars
ok but not clear about the edition
I expected the newer addition and recieved a very old one. Seller should be more clear about which one they are trying to sell.
Published on August 31, 2010 by Ashley Scudder
1.0 out of 5 stars
Recipe for racism
Black racism, embodied by this "religion", is no different that that put forth by the KKK. Skin color over religion dominates. Read more
Published on October 14, 2008 by Reagan Democrat
