A Black Theology of Liberation

Introduction

As the influence of the church on American society has waned, there have been those who have sought to make it more relevant to the real life concerns of individuals. This has been particularly true in the African-American community, where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave fresh meaning and relevance to the church during the period 1955-1968. Yet another effort to make the church relevant was that of liberation theology.

Liberation theology arose in the third world--specifically Latin America--where it was recognized that one's view of God and his action in the world can be profoundly altered by one's praxis or experience of life. The God of the wealthy is rather different from the God worshipped in the barrios or slums of the major cities in such countries as Peru or Brazil. This idea that one's view of the gospel is shaped by one's location in life has taken firm root in certain groups in the United States, and specifically among blacks and women.


Black Theology

Liberation theology as it has expressed itself in the African-American community seeks to find a way to make the gospel relevant to black people who must struggle daily under the burden of white oppression. The question that confronts these black theologians is not one that is easily answered. "What if anything does the Christian gospel have to say to powerless black men," to use James Cone's words, whose existence is "threatened on a daily basis by the insidious tentacles of white power?" If the gospel has nothing to say to people as they confront the daily realities of life, it is a lifeless message. If Christianity is not real for blacks, then they will reject it.

There are many reasons why Christianity has not been real for blacks. To begin with, white Christianity emphasizes individualism, and divides the world into separate realms of the sacred and secular, public and private. Such a view of the world is alien to African-American spirituality. The Christianity that was communicated to blacks had as its primary focus life in world to come. This was at odds with traditional African spirituality which was focused on life in the present world. And if that were not enough, Christianity is hopelessly associated with slavery and segregation in the minds of many African-Americans.

More importantly, there are reasons to believe that many African-Americans are beginning to reject Christianity. The growing presence of Islam in the African-American community is nurtured by a variety of forces, but one of its principle sources of strength is the sense within many blacks of a tremendous gap that exists between what takes place in the Church on Sunday, and how church people live the rest of the week. Many of the new converts to Islam were Christian, but they testify to seeing little coherence between the worship of the church, and the rough and tumble world of the streets the rest of the week.

One element of Islam that has attracted many African-Americans is the fact that Muslims have a strong reputation for living what they preach. Whereas church members might spend much of their week hanging out and drinking, Muslims demonstrate discipline, respect, and personal integrity that many in the black community feel is lacking among many members of the church. In a similar fashion, the Muslim claim that Christianity was imposed on blacks by the slaveholders has struck a sensitive nerve in the black community, and has aided them in the effort to win new converts. Growing numbers of blacks have accepted the proposition that Islam was the original faith of African-Americans. As a result, the same forces driving Afro-centrism are also prompting many blacks to explore their roots in Islam.

In the face of all this, the question that confronts the advocates of a black theology
of liberation is somewhat intimidating. "Can one still be black, and believe in the
biblical tradition as expressed in the Old and New Testaments?" Can the Christian
faith be stripped of the interpretations given these sacred texts by whites, and be
made real for black men and women?

The Starting Point for a Black Theology of Liberation

To develop a theology that speaks to African-Americans, black liberation theologians such as James Cone begin with the person of Jesus, and specifically the Jesus revealed in the Gospel of Luke. In Luke's gospel, Jesus has a concern for the oppressed that does not always come through in the other gospels. Luke's Jesus begins his ministry with this announcement:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18-19)

From this text, Cone draws a fundamental lesson about Jesus: his "work is essentially one of liberation." Jesus inaugurates "an age of liberation in which 'the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the good news preached to them.'" (Luke7:22) "In Christ," Cone argues, "God enters human affairs and takes sides with the oppressed. Their suffering becomes his; their despair, divine despair."

Cone continues his line of argument with a force that cuts to the marrow of contemporary American Christianity: "Jesus had little toleration for the middle- or upper-class religious snob whose attitude attempted to usurp the sovereignty of God and destroy the dignity of the poor," Cone writes, "The Kingdom is not for the poor and not the rich because the former has nothing to expect from the world while the latter's entire existence is grounded in his commitment to worldly things. The poor man may expect everything from God, while the rich man may expect nothing because he refuses to free himself from his own pride. It is not that poverty is a pre-condition for entrance into the Kingdom. But those who recognize their utter
dependence on God, and wait on him despite the miserable absurdity of life are typically the poor, according to Jesus."

When black people hear this message, Cone insists, they discover a message that resonates with their experience of life. Their experience of struggling for liberation is the same as the struggle of Christ himself. And if Jesus was resurrected, and is now alive, then he is now fighting for the very same things, working against the structures of injustice.

The Great Satan

In the New Testament, Jesus comes into the world to destroy the works of Satan. If the preceding identification of the struggle of Jesus and that of African-Americans seeking liberation is true, then there must also be a Satan in the contemporary picture. Black Theology does not get bogged down in quaint personifications of Satan (the current issue of Newsweek has a wonderful article on Satan, by the way), but sees him at work in the powers and principalities of this world that would enslave and demean human beings. And the most demonic of these powers in the black experience is that of racism.

Cone writes: "Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the
white man 'the devil.' The white structure of this American society, personified in
every racist, must be at least part of what the New Testament meant by demonic
forces...Ironically, the man who enslaves another enslaves himself...To be free to
do what I will in relation to another is to be in bondage to the law of least
resistance. This is the bondage of racism. Racism is that bondage in which whites
are free to beat, rape, or kill blacks. About thirty years ago it was acceptable to
lynch a black man by hanging him from a tree; but today whites destroy him by
crowding him into a ghetto and letting filth and despair put the final touches on
death."

James Cone wrote those words in 1968, and while they are dated, they still convey
a powerful truth. What happened to Rodney King at the hands of the Los Angeles
police continues to happen to black men with disturbing frequency. The jails and
prisons are filling with black men. One third of all black men are now under the
jurisdiction of the courts or prison system. And one of the principle reasons are
drug laws designed to punish with mandatory prison terms those who use "rock
cocaine" (the principle form of cocaine used in the black community because it is
relatively inexpensive), while penalties for possession of the powder form (the form
used by wealthy whites) are largely financial, and do not require one to serve time.
Why would society design a criminal justice system with such disparate impact?
Cone and many blacks would lay the blame at the feet of the demonic force of
racism.

The Goal of a Black Theology of Liberation

What is the goal of a black theology of liberation? Is it a society in which blacks are given special treatment and rights? No. All Black theologians are asking for is for freedom and justice. No more, and no less. In asking for this, the Black theologians, turn to scripture as the sanction for their demand. The Psalmist writes for instance, "If God is going to see righteousness established in the land, he himself must be particularly active as 'the helper of the fatherless' (Psalm 10:14) to 'deliver the needy when he crieth; and the poor that hath no helper' (Psalm 72:12).

Karl Barth--who was not black--recognized the legitimacy of this demand. "For this reason, Barth wrote, "in the relations and events in the life of his people, God always takes his stand unconditionally and passionately on this side alone: against the lofty and on behalf of the lowly; against those who already enjoy right and privilege and on behalf of those who are denied it and deprived of it."

Black liberation theologians do not intend to allow the church--whether it be white or black--to evade this responsibility. It "cannot say that the poor are in poverty because they will not work, or that they suffer because they are lazy. Having come before God as nothing and being received by him into his Kingdom through grace, the Christian should know that he has been made righteous (justified) so that he (or she) can join God in the fight for justice. Therefore, whoever fights for the poor, fights for God; whoever risks his life for the helpless and unwanted, risks his life for God."

Precisely what this entails is not always clear to whites. For them, loving one's neighbor "becomes emotional and sentimental. This sentimental, condescending love accounts for their desire to "help" by relieving the physical pains of the suffering blacks so they can satisfy their own religious piety and keep the poor powerless." But advocates of a black theology of liberation will not allow whites to get off so easy. "Authentic love is not 'help,'" Cone writes, "not giving Christmas baskets, but working for political, social, and economic justice, which always means a redistribution of power. It is the kind of power which enables blacks to fight their own battles and thus keep their dignity."

Many whites, myself included, can be put off by advocates of a black theology of
liberation. We would much prefer the approach of Martin Luther King, Jr. because
his approach was the least threatening to the white power structure, and to our own
understanding of ourselves. Many whites identified with him precisely because he
did not challenge their own racism directly, and allowed them to assuage their own
sense of guilt with little or no risk.

But I would be willing to contend that if the great chasm that separates the races in
this nation is to ever be bridged, it will require that we bring to the discussion
something more than good intentions, or pious words about making sure everyone
is treated with equity. Not only will we have to bring to the conversation a
willingness to try to understand the pain African-Americans feel, but we will also
have to recognize that we are so intimately involved in a racist system, that we are
often oblivious to the degree that we have caused or continue to cause that pain.

Perhaps the real test of whether whites can communicate with blacks as human
beings is not what we might say to a Colin Powell, who--like King--does not
challenge whites to confront their racism, but rather how we choose to respond to a
Louis Farrakhan who challenges us in ways we would prefer not to be challenged.







Liberation Theology"
alan Joplin




Theological controversies are often confined to seminary classrooms or theological journals. But the controversy provoked
by Latin American liberation theology has been public and it has
been worldwide - involving the Vatican, orthodox and
not-so-orthodox priests, lay people, sociologists, socialists,
capitalists, economists, government leaders and their military,
and much more. Liberation theology has certainly not been the
passing fad some analysts thought it would be when it first
emerged in the late 1960s.

Strictly speaking, liberation theology should be understood as a
family of theologies - including the Latin American, Black, and
feminist varieties. All three respond to some form of oppression:
Latin American liberation theologians say their poverty-stricken
people have been oppressed and exploited by rich, capitalist
nations. Black liberation theologians argue that their people
have suffered oppression at the hands of racist whites. Feminist
liberation theologians lay heavy emphasis upon the status and
liberation of women in a male-dominated society.



EUROPEAN ROOTS

Some of the theological roots of Latin American liberation theology can be traced directly to the writings of certain European theologians. Three of the more notable of these are

Jurgen Moltmann, Moltmann has suggested that the coming kingdom gives the church a society-transforming vision of reality as opposed to a merely private vision of personal salvation.

Johannes Baptist Metz, Metz has emphasized that there is a political dimension to faith, and that the church must be an institution of social criticism.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Bonhoeffer has issued a call to redefine religion in a secular context. His theology emphasizes human responsibility toward others, and stresses the value of seeing the world with "the view from below" - the perspective of the poor and oppressed.

Though liberationists have borrowed from these theologians, they nevertheless charge the European theologies with being "theoretical abstractions, ideologically neutral, [and] neglecting the miserable, unjust present for some 'Christianity of the future.'"[2] The theological methodology developed by liberation theologians specifically addresses these perceived deficiencies.

MARXIST INFLUENCES

Marxism has also exerted a profound influence on liberation theologians. This should not be taken to mean that they have espoused Marxism as a holistic plan of political action, for they have not. Their interest has been limited to using Marxist categories for social analysis.

According to Marx, man once existed in a simple, primitive state. At that time, there was happiness and tranquility. This primitive state of happiness was disrupted, however, by the rise of economic classes where one class sought to oppress and exploit another for its own economic advantage. Marx believed all of man's problems are the direct result of this class exploitation. He portrayed capitalism as the chief culprit that gave rise to this undesirable state of affairs.

Marx was adamant that man can never be truly happy or free in a capitalistic society. Man, he said, has become an alienated being and does not feel "at home" in a capitalistic environment.

However, this alienation will not last forever. Marx believed that history is inexorably moving toward a climactic day when the oppressed workers of the world, the proletariat, will rise up and overthrow their capitalistic oppressors, the bourgeoisie. In the place of the old bourgeois society with its classes and class antagonisms, there will be a harmonious society in which there is equity for all.

THE THEOLOGY OF LIBERATION

Drawing from European theologies and Marxism, Latin
American theologians developed their own theology by radically
reinterpreting Scripture with "a bias toward the poor." Let us now
briefly survey key aspects of the theology of liberation.

Liberation theology begins with the premise that all theology is
biased - that is, particular theologies reflect the economic and
social classes of those who developed them. Accordingly, the
traditional theology predominant in North America and Europe is
said to "perpetuate the interests of white, North
American/European, capitalist males." This theology allegedly
"supports and legitimates a political and economic system -
democratic capitalism - which is responsible for exploiting and
impoverishing the Third World."[3]

Like Bonhoeffer, liberation theologians say theology must start
with a "view from below" - that is, with the sufferings of the
oppressed. Within this broad framework, different liberation
theologians have developed distinctive methodologies for
"doing" theology.

Gustavo Gutierrez, author of A Theology of Liberation, provides
us with a representative methodology. Like other liberationists,
Gutierrez rejects the idea that theology is a systematic collection
of timeless and culture-transcending truths that remains static for
all generations. Rather, theology is in flux; it is a dynamic and
ongoing exercise involving contemporary insights into
knowledge, humanity, and history.

Gutierrez emphasizes that theology is not just to be learned, it is
to be done. In his thinking, "praxis" is the starting point for
theology. Praxis (from the Greek prasso: "to work") involves
revolutionary action on behalf of the poor and oppressed - and
out of this, theological perceptions will continually emerge. The
theologian must therefore be immersed in the struggle for
transforming society and proclaim his message from that point.

In the theological process, then, praxis must always be the first
stage; theology is the second stage. Theologians are not to be
mere theoreticians, but practitioners who participate in the
ongoing struggle to liberate the oppressed.

Sin. Using methodologies such as Gutierrez's, liberationists
interpret sin not primarily from an individual, private perspective,
but from a social and economic perspective. Gutierrez explains
that "sin is not considered as an individual, private, or merely
interior reality. Sin is regarded as a social, historical fact, the
absence of brotherhood and love in relationships among
men."[4]

Liberationists view capitalist nations as sinful specifically
because they have oppressed and exploited poorer nations.
Capitalist nations have become prosperous, they say, at the
expense of impoverished nations. This is often spoken of in
terms of "dependency theory" - that is, the development of rich
countries depends on the underdevelopment of poor countries.

There is another side to sin in liberation theology. Those who are
oppressed can and do sin by acquiescing to their bondage. To
go along passively with oppression rather than resisting and
attempting to overthrow it - by violent means if necessary - is
sin.[5]

The use of violence has been one of the most controversial
aspects of liberation theology. Such violence is not considered
sinful if it is used for resisting oppression. Indeed, certain
liberation theologians "will in some cases regard a particular
action (e.g., killing) as sin if it is committed by an oppressor, but
not if it is committed by the oppressed in the struggle to remove
inequities. The removal of inequities is believed to result in the
removal of the occasion of sin [i.e., the oppressor] as well."[6]

Salvation. Salvation is viewed not primarily in terms of life after
death for the individual, but in terms of bringing about the
kingdom of God: a new social order where there will be equality
for all. This is not to deny eternal life per se, but it is to
emphasize that the eternal and the temporal "intersect" in
liberation theology. "If, as the traditional formulation has it, history
and eternity are two parallel (i.e., nonintersecting) realms, our
goal within history is to gain access to eternity."[7] But if history
and eternity intersect, "if salvation is moving into a new
order--then we must strive against everything which at present
denies that order."[8]

God. Liberationists argue that the traditional Christian doctrine
of God manipulates the divine being such that He appears to
favor the capitalistic social structure. They claim the orthodox
view of God is rooted in the ancient Greeks who saw God as a
static being - distant and remote from human history. This
distorted view of a transcendent deity has, they say, yielded a
theology that understands God as "out there," far removed from
the affairs of humankind. As a result, many Latin Americans have
adopted a passive stance in the face of their oppression and
exploitation.

Liberation theologians have thus tried to communicate to their
compatriots that God is not impassive. Rather, He is dynamically
involved in behalf of the poor and downtrodden. And because
God stands against oppression and exploitation, those who
follow Him must do likewise. Indeed, Gutierrez says that "to know
God is to do justice."[9]

Jesus Christ. While liberation theologians do not outright deny
Christ's deity, there is no clear-cut, unambiguous confession that
Jesus is God. The significance of Jesus Christ lies in His
example of struggling for the poor and the outcast. The
Incarnation is reinterpreted to represent God's total immersion
into man's history of conflict and oppression. By His words and
actions, Jesus showed us how to become true sons of God - that
is, by bringing in the kingdom of God through actively pursuing
the liberation of the oppressed.

Most liberationists see Jesus' death on the cross as having no
vicarious value; rather, Jesus died because He upset the
religious/political situation of His time. Leonardo Boff says
Jesus' followers fabricated the idea that Jesus' death had a
transcendent, salvific significance: "The historically true events
are the crucifixion, the condemnation by Pilate, and the
inscription on the cross in three languages known by the Jews.
The rest of the events are theologized or are pure theology
developed in light of the resurrection and of the reflection upon
the Old Testament."[10] Jesus' death is unique because "he
historicizes in exemplary fashion the suffering experienced by
God in all the crosses of the oppressed."[11] Liberationists
acknowledge Jesus' resurrection, but they are not clear on its
significance.

The Church. Liberation theology does not ask what the church
is, but rather what it means "to be the church in a context of
extreme poverty, social injustice and revolution. In the context of
liberation theology the mission of the church seems to be more
important than its nature."[12]

Gutierrez and other liberation theologians say the church's
mission is no longer one of a "quantitative" notion of saving
numbers of souls.[13] Rather, the church's mission "is at all times
to protest against injustice, to challenge what is inhuman, to side
with the poor and the oppressed."[14]

Related to the doctrine of the church has been the formation and
growth of "ecclesial base communities," since the 1970s. These
are "small, grassroots, lay groups of the poor or the ordinary
people, meeting to pray, conduct Bible studies, and wrestle
concretely with social and political obligations in their
settings."[15]

These communities have been effective in showing workers and
peasants how to organize for their own social welfare. Gutierrez
says that "in most Latin American countries, the church's base
communities are the only form of social action available to the
poor."[16] Indeed, they have become "the major vehicle for the
spread of liberation themes beyond academic circles. By 1980
there were as many as 100,000 base communities meeting in
Latin America."[17]








The shift in perspectives on socialism is one of the most
important developments in liberation theology. In the recent
writings of many liberation theologians, we find the concession
that "the once-favored approach of substituting socialism for
dependency or capitalism simply doesn't work, as has been
seen in Eastern Europe."[27] Without necessarily deserting
socialism, liberationists have shown an increasing ambiguity
about what socialism really means, as well as an increasing
tolerance of competing systems and an acceptance of
Western-style democracy as a legitimate weapon against
oppression.[28] Arthur F. McGovern, a Jesuit, comments that
"the new political context in many parts of Latin America has led
liberation theologians to talk about building a 'participatory
democracy' from within civil society. Socialism no longer
remains an unqualified paradigm for liberation aspirations."[29]

Another significant development in liberation theology is that its
theologians are speaking much less of dependency theory - the
idea that the development of rich countries depends on the
underdevelopment of poor countries. To be sure, liberation
theologians are still predominantly anticapitalist, but many have
recognized that dependency theory has rightfully been criticized
for some of its fundamental assertions.

The fallacy of dependency theory has been demonstrated by
sociologist Peter Berger of Boston University. Berger has
pointed out that "the development experience of Japan and the
'four little dragons' of East Asia - Taiwan, South Korea, Hong
Kong and Singapore - represent 'empirical falsification' of the
socioeconomic assumptions of dependency theory and
liberation theology." On the other hand, Berger stressed, "there
is simply no evidence of successful development by socialist
third world nations anywhere or at anytime."[30]

Moreover, the liberationist's solution to the dependency problem
- a socialist break with the capitalist world - has looked less
attractive to liberation theologians because "the models of
socialism either seemed to be bankrupt, or were resorting to
market incentives and private enterprise, even inviting
multinational investment."[31]






We have already noted that liberation theologians are focusing
more on issues of spirituality. First and foremost, this means that
liberation theologians are deriving more of their liberationist
concepts from the Bible as opposed to social theory. Early
books by liberation theologians focused primarily on social
analysis and had very few biblical references. Now the situation
is practically reversed: recent books by liberation theologians
contain many biblical references and very little social analysis.
There is much more "theology" in liberation theology these days.
But their methodological approach is still one of a preferential
treatment to the poor.




In a recent article in Insight magazine, Daniel Wattenberg
suggests that another factor linking Pentecostalism and upward
mobility is "the mutual material support available within the
Pentecostal faith community (the churches provide a network
that often functions as a job or housing referral agency)."[43]
Moreover, volunteer work in the church "utilizes peoples' talents
and creates opportunities to develop new skills that may give
them a sense of usefulness and fulfillment for the first time in their
lives."[44] The skills learned in a church context also give an
edge to church members in seeking work outside the church.

Big changes are occurring in Latin America, and it remains to be
seen where it will all lead. The likelihood is that (1) Marxism will
continue to wane; (2) liberation theologians will continue to focus
more on issues of spirituality; (3) the Protestant explosion will
continue, with an emphasis on personal transformation; and (4)
all this will probably have some positive effect on social and
economic conditions in the region.

THE BIBLE AND POVERTY

Critics of liberation theology at times come across as though
they are detached and unsympathetic to Latin American poverty.
No doubt some of these critics actually do lack concern. Before
offering criticisms of this controversial theology, therefore, it is
important that we first affirm that there is a strong scriptural basis
for helping the poor.

In the Old Testament, God gave the theocracy of Israel specific
guidelines for taking care of the poor. He commanded that the
corners of fields were not to be reaped so that something would
be left for the needy to eat (Lev. 19:9-10).

God also promised a special blessing to all who gave to the
poor (Prov. 19:17), and judgment to those who oppressed the
poor (Ps. 140:12). Robbing and cheating the poor were
condemned (Hosea 12:7). Widows and orphans - who were
especially vulnerable to oppression - came under special
protection from the law (Exod. 22:22-23).

God in the law also made provisions for poor sojourners who
were not a part of Israel's theocracy. Gleanings from the harvest
were to be left for them (Deut. 24:19-21), and they were ranked
in the same category as widows and orphans as being
defenseless (Ps. 94:6).

Jesus is very clear about our responsibility to the poor and
oppressed. Christ's strong warning that eternal condemnation
awaits those who do not feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and
visit the prisoners (Matt. 25:31-46) shows that the
disadvantaged are not merely a peripheral concern of His. In the
parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus taught that anybody in
need is our neighbor (Luke 10:29f.).

The biblical view of the poor and oppressed is such that God's
people everywhere should be appalled at the poverty of the
people in Latin America. Liberation theologians and the people
of Latin America have a legitimate gripe. Indeed, how can the
church in Latin America not act to help relieve the suffering of its
people?

Nevertheless, a legitimate and commendable concern for the
poor and oppressed must never be used to justify a theological
methodology that leads to a gross distortion of Christianity - the
only true means of liberation. Evangelicals maintain that this is
precisely what Latin American liberationists have done.

A FAULTY FOUNDATION

Inasmuch as the liberationist's views on God, Jesus Christ, the
church, sin, and salvation are an outgrowth of his or her
theological methodology, it follows that the starting point for a
critique of liberation theology would be its hermeneutic. We shall
therefore narrow our focus to this one issue.

Method is everything when interpreting Scripture. With an
improper methodology, one is bound to distort the author's
intended meaning - the only true meaning (see 2 Pet. 3:16).

The word method comes from the Greek methodos, which
literally means "a way or path of transit." Methodology in Bible
study is therefore concerned with the proper path to be taken in
order to arrive at scriptural truth. Latin American theologians
have chosen a "path" intended to produce liberation. But have
they distorted the author's intended meaning in the process?

The Problem With Praxis

Foundationally, the liberation hermeneutic (which makes praxis
the first step, and theology the second) is completely without any
controlling exegetical criteria. Vernon C. Grounds is right when
he says that "there is no exegetical magic by which new
meanings can without limit be conjured out of the Bible under the
illuminating creativity of new situations."[45]

In liberation theology, the basic authority in interpretation ceases
to be Scripture; it is rather the mind of the interpreter as he
"reads" the current historical situation. It is one of the canons of
literary (not just scriptural) hermeneutics, however, that what a
passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to
alteration by readers. "Meaning is determined by the author; it is
discovered by readers."[46]

Only after the meaning has been discovered by the reader can it
be applied to the current situation. Certainly we all agree that
Christians must practice their faith in daily life. But from a
Scriptural perspective, the way a Christian conducts his or her
life is based on the objective, propositional revelation found in
Scripture. Christians must know God's will as revealed in
Scripture before they can act on it. Without a preeminence of
Scripture over praxis, the Christian cannot know what to believe
or what to do. Evangelicals therefore reject any suggestion that
"we must do in order to know, and hope that orthodoxy will arise
from orthopraxis [right action]."

An examination of Jesus' use of the Old Testament shows that
He interpreted it as objective, propositional revelation (see Matt.
22:23-33). His hermeneutic knew nothing of making praxis the
first step for discovering theological truth.

Truth that Transcends Culture and Time

Evangelicals have criticized the inability of liberation theology's
hermeneutic to develop a culture-transcending theology with
normative authority. Liberation theologians have shown little or
no recognition of the fact that there are teachings and
commands in Scripture that - owing to their divine inspiration (2
Tim. 3:16) - transcend all cultural barriers and are binding on all
people everywhere. Key teachings of Scripture - such as man's
sin, his alienation from God, his need for a personal Redeemer -
speak universally to the human condition and can never be
bound to particular cultures or situations.[47]

Moreover, evangelicals criticize the liberationist idea that
theological truth is in a constant state of flux, changing along with
the temporal conditions of society. Nunez has noted that "there
are chapters of liberation theology that cannot be written at the
present time, because they have to be the result of a given
practice."[48] Applications of Scripture can change as the
temporal conditions of society change - but the
Scripture-author's intended meaning from which those
applications are drawn are fixed and cannot be relativized.

Alien Preunderstandings

A "preunderstanding" of a preferential option for the poor is the
very heart of liberation hermeneutics. Liberationists argue that
"the reader of the Bible must deliberately choose his eyeglasses
before he begins reading, and that the 'preferential option for the
poor' means just that - a deliberate bias or perspective. Without
this, the true meaning cannot be known. We must discard our
North Atlantic lenses, we are told, and put on Third World ones -
we must lay aside the eyeglasses of the rich to use those of the
poor."[49]

Relevant to this issue is a small book published in 1983 by the
International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. Entitled Explaining
Hermeneutics, Article XIX declares: "We affirm that any
preunderstandings which the interpreter brings to Scripture
should be in harmony with scriptural teaching and subject to
correction by it. We deny that Scripture should be required to fit
alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself."[50] The point of
this article is to avoid interpreting Scripture through an alien grid
or filter (liberationism, for example) which obscures or negates
its true message. This article acknowledges that "one's
preunderstanding will affect his understanding of a text. Hence,
to avoid misinterpreting Scripture one must be careful to
examine his own presuppositions in the light of Scripture."[51]

Now, we must frankly admit that all interpreters are influenced to
some degree by personal, theological, ecclesiastical, and
political prejudices. Evangelical scholar Emilio Nunez has rightly
conceded that none of us approaches Scripture in a "chemically
pure" state. This is why Article XIX above is so important:
preunderstandings must be in harmony with Scripture and
subject to correction by it. Only those preunderstandings that are
compatible with Scripture are legitimate.

Graham N. Stanton, Professor of New Testament Studies at the
University of London King's College, elaborates on the
corrective nature of Scripture: "The interpreter must allow his
own presuppositions and his own pre-understanding to be
modified or even completely reshaped by the text itself. Unless
this is allowed to happen, the interpreter will be unable to avoid
projecting his own ideas on to the text. Exegesis guided rigidly
by pre-understanding will be able to establish only what the
interpreter already knows. There must be a constant dialogue
between the interpreter and the text."[52] If this methodology is
followed, "the text may well shatter the interpreter's existing
pre-understanding and lead him to an unexpectedly new vantage
point from which he continues his scrutiny of the text."[53]

Had liberation theologians followed this one procedure, the
theology of liberation would have turned out to be a horse of a
different color. Indeed, a theologian who approached Scripture
with a "preferential option for the poor" would have found - upon
submitting this preunderstanding to the correction of Scripture -
that his preunderstanding was unbiblical. For, from a scriptural
perspective, both the poor and the rich, both the oppressed and
oppressors, are afflicted by sin and are in need of salvation.
Romans 3:23 says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory
of God." Our Lord preached the gospel of salvation to the poor
(Luke 7:22) but He preached the same message to the rich
(Luke 5:32; 10:1-10). God is "not wanting anyone to perish, but
everyone to come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9).

Now, evangelicals concede that God has a special concern for
the poor, and salvation is - by His own design - more readily
accepted by the less fortunate (Matt. 19:23). Nevertheless, from
Genesis to Revelation Scripture has a clear "preferential option"
for the fallen.

By submitting his preunderstanding to Scripture, the liberationist
would have also discovered that the gap between the rich and
the poor is not the cause of man's predicament; it is merely one
symptom of it (see Jer. 5:26-29). It was not primarily the
bourgeoisie that needed to be overthrown; it was man's sin - his
selfishness and greed - that needed conquering (1 Pet. 2:24). It
was not fundamentally a political revolution that was needed, but
a revolution in the human heart - something found only in Jesus
Christ (2 Cor. 5:17), who came not to be a model political
revolutionary but to die on the cross for man's sins as the Lamb
of God (Matt. 26:26-28).

We repeat, then, that if we are to understand the author's
intended meaning in Scripture (the only true meaning), it is
imperative that preunderstandings be in harmony with Scripture
and subject to correction by it. Only then will it be possible to
develop a truly biblical theology of liberation - a theology that at
once emphasizes the fundamental need for liberation from sin,
but at the same time stresses the biblical injunction to reach out
in compassion to the poor.

A CHALLENGE TO EVANGELICALS

Are evangelicals as concerned as they should be about the
plight of the poor and oppressed in our world? And if they are
not, is this because there is a defect in their theology that
ignores the biblical emphasis on caring for the poor and the
needy? If liberationists have approached Scripture with a
preunderstanding that "opts" for the poor, is it possible that
some evangelicals have unwittingly approached Scripture with a
preunderstanding that filters out sufficient concern for the poor
and oppressed?

These are difficult questions, and it is incumbent upon every
Christian to examine his or her heart on this issue. Certainly,
evangelicals have little right to criticize the theology of liberation
if they are not prepared to criticize possible deficiencies in their
own theology in regard to caring for the poor and oppressed of
our world.

Scripture is clear that we have a God-appointed responsibility to
take whatever steps we can to help the poor. Yet, at the same
time, we as evangelicals must insist that ultimately the
transformation of any society depends on the prior
transformation of the individuals that make up that society. This
is the Christian counterpart to "dependency theory." The
revolution so earnestly sought in society will best be
accomplished as greater numbers of people in that society
experience the revolution of new birth and the ongoing renewal
of life in Christ.

NOTES

1"An Attack on Liberation Theology," Orange County Register, 1
Dec. 1985, A10.

2 Harvie M. Conn, "Liberation Theology," in New Dictionary of
Theology, ed. Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 388.

3 Dean C. Curry, A World Without Tyranny (Westchester, IL:
Crossway Books, 1990), 68.

4 Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis, 1971), 175.

5 Justo L. Gonzalez and Catherine G. Gonzalez, Liberation
Preaching (Nashville: Abingdon, 1980), 23.

6 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1983), 592.

7 Ibid., 895.

8 Gonzalez and Gonzalez, 24.

9 Jason Berry, "El Salvador's Response to Liberation Theology,"
The Washington Post, 4-10 Dec. 1989, 25.

10 Leonardo Boff, Jesucristo y la liberacion del hombre, 292;
cited by Emilio Nunez, Liberation Theology (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1985), 232-33.

11 Douglas D. Webster, "Liberation Theology," in Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1984), 637.

12 Emilio Nunez, "The Church in the Liberation Theology of
Gutierrez," in Biblical Interpretation and the Church, ed. D. A.
Carson (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984), 174.

13 Gutierrez, 150.

14 Monika Hellwig, "Liberation Theology: An Emerging School,"
Scottish Journal of Theology 30 (1977):141.

15 Conn, 389.

16 Kenneth L. Woodward, "A Church for the Poor," Newsweek,
26 Feb. 1979, 20.

17 B. T. Adeney, "Liberation Theology," in Dictionary of
Christianity in America, ed. Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 1990), 649.

18 Harvie M. Conn, "Theologies of Liberation: An Overview," in
Tensions in Contemporary Theology, ed. Stanley N. Gundry and
Alan F. Johnson (Chicago: Moody Press, 1979), 344.

19 Paul E. Sigmund, Liberation Theology at the Crossroads
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 11.

20 Don A. Schanche, "Vatican Document Accepts Some
'Liberation Theology,'" Los Angeles Times, 6 April 1986, 5.

21 Richard N. Ostling, "A Lesson on Liberation," Time, 14 April
1986, 84.

22 Sigmund, 181-82.

23 Michael Novak, "The Revolution That Wasn't," Christianity
Today, 23 April 1990, 18.

24 Ibid., 20.

25 Ibid.

26 Sigmund, 181.

27 Kenneth Freed, "The Cross and the Gun," Los Angeles
Times, 9 Oct. 1990, H8.

28 Sigmund, 196.

29 Arthur F. McGovern, Liberation Theology and Its Critics
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1989), 230.

30 Dean C. Curry, "Liberation Theology in 80s: Is There
Something New?" Eternity, November 1985, 13.

31 Sigmund, 179.

32 Freed, H8.

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid.

35 Sigmund, 177.

36 Ibid.

37 Daniel Wattenberg, "Protestants Create an Altered State,"
Insight, 16 July 1990, 9.

38 David Neff, "God's Latino Revolution," Christianity Today, 14
May 1990, 15.

39 John Marcom Jr., "The Fire Down South," Forbes, 15 Oct.
1990, 66-67.

40 Daniel Wattenberg, "Gospel Message of Getting Ahead Inch
by Inch," Insight, 16 July 1990, 16.

41 Ibid.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid.

44 Ibid.

45 Vernon C. Grounds, "Scripture in Liberation Theology," in
Challenges to Inerrancy, ed. Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce
Demarest (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), 344.

46 Norman L. Geisler, Explaining Hermeneutics (Oakland, CA:
International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1983), 7.

47 Ibid.

48 Nunez, in Carson, 173.

49 W. Dayton Roberts, "Liberation Theologies," Christianity
Today, 17 May 1985, 15.

50 Ibid., 14-15.

51 Geisler, 15.

52 Graham N. Stanton, "Presuppositions in New Testament
Criticism," in New Testament Interpretation, ed. I. Howard
Marshall (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1977), 68.

53 Ibid.





The Black Church


It is common for persons to talk about the black church as if it were one unified entity. In reality there are many different black churches that serve African-American communities. Generally the most influential churches in many black communities are Baptist, which are independent institutions affiliated with one or more of the major Baptist associations. However, black Methodists are also quite strong. The oldest independent African-American denomination is the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church, founded in 1787.

Another important constituent of the black church is Pentecostal. These tend to be the smaller, store-front or movie-theater churches that are focused primarily on evangelism and spiritual service, rather than more "worldly" activities. While ministers of some of the larger Pentecostal churches do play a major role in their communities, they are less likely to become part of community-based networks that do not have a major religious thrust.

In some instances, well-known African-American ministers in a community belong to denominations that are overwhelmingly white--Episcopal, Lutheran, United Methodist, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic. Often these ministers are largely supported by the diocese rather than by income generated by their own churches and may minister to relatively small congregations. These congregations tend to attract a higher percentage of educated, middle-class congregants than other churches that draw their membership primarily from minority communities.

In working with black church leadership, it is important to recognize that the involvement of ministers in secular activities is generally encouraged by the black community. Many powerful black politicians are also ministers. For example, during the 1980s, three African-Americans served as members of Conoress while simultaneously maintaining positions as senior minister for congregations in Philadelphia, New York City and Washington, D.C. Generally the most powerful and influential black churches can be identified by three major criteria:
• Size of congregation;
• Length of time that the church has been in existence;
• Number of influential black leaders (particularly elected and appointed officials) who are church members.

Often an individual African-American minister will gain considerable name recognition, particularly in the broader community, even though he or she has a relatively small congregation. While these individuals can be quite helpful, the most resources generally come from ministers who can speak for congregations with hundreds or even thousands of members and whose networks touch other major institutions, such as city, county and school district boards.

Important Facts of the Black Church

1. The black church in America is primarily female in its membership even though the leadership is generally male.

2. Males who attend church regularly tend to fall into two major age categories: under 14 years old or over 60. Boys come because their mothers make them attend and older men often establish church membership when their health begins to fail. Both groups - boys and older men in ill health -- are inappropriate as volunteers for [Big Brother]programs.


3. Adult men in their 20s, 30s and 40s who are active in black churches also tend to be involved in a variety of other activities in the community and, as a result, are often over-committed. In addition, their congregations often rely heavily on these men -- who are relatively few in number -- for volunteer activities within the church and in the surrounding community, leaving them little time for other volunteer tasks.

4. Adult women, particularly those over 40, form the backbone of many churches. Those who are not heavily committed to church work and do not have small children may be excellent prospects for Big Sisters programs.


5. Women with small children who are concerned about their children's values often establish or re-establish church membership. This is especially true of single mothers who can benefit from the various social and spiritual supports provided by black churches.


Black seek
a more just church

They talked about the sin of racism in the church and society, women's ordination, human sexuality, worship and youth involvement in the church. They said they wanted to see crime, education, poverty -- issues that affect blacks significantly -- to be an integral part of the church's agenda.

• "We need not have a spirit of timidity as we respond to the cries of the poor, to crumbling neighborhoods, to disintegrating families,"

• "We have no time to do anything except live the gospel mandate to stand with and work on behalf of the poor and oppressed."

• to develop some ideas and skills that I can take back and motivate our people so that we can move forward into the new millennium,"

• "Black clergy and lay leaders have to face the issues before us. We cannot be complacent because we have made a few gains,"

• address racism, unemployment, affirmative action, war and crime.
community.

• There is a serious sense of urgency to get done what needs to be done." He urged participants to find the power to see things through.

• Americans living with HIV/AIDS, panel member African-Americans comprise 13 percent of the U.S. population yet account for 53 percent of those infected with HIV. Milan urged participants to become knowledgeable about the disease, both personally and in the community, and to become involved in the issue.
Erica Clifton, 20, a junior at Ohio State University, Columbus,
• addressed women's ordination, human sexuality and youth and young adults in church.

• "We need to stop arguing about women's ordination,"
• "Who did Jesus send to tell he was risen from the dead? Jesus had no prejudice about whom [he sent] to spread the good news."
• to stop arguments about gays and lesbians because "ridiculing is not nice by Christians."

• hopes the black community will work at not being divided on the issue of homosexuality. "The church's ministry to and with gay people has been a subject no one wants to discuss ... there are many gay and lesbian people active in very responsible positions in the church.

• "I hope that the black community will not stay on the sideline and say, 'This is not an issue for us,' but that this is a liberation issue that needs our full attention. The gospel calls us to be involved in all situations where oppression exists."
youth
• "We do not know where we stand. There are resources [for me] with no knowledge on how to get hold of them," said Jennings. "I think the UBE needs to take an active role in helping us if we are the future ... extending a hand to help us get the information we need."

• The black community is divided between citizens of the First and Third Worlds, "to be careful not to get caught up in the old divide-and-conquer strategy that plays racial groups against each other. "Developed and developing worlds should seek to build bridges of understanding instead of walls of separation within our various groups."

• , "When and where I enter, the entire race enters with me." Brown-Douglas then challenged participants "to use these words as an outline as we contemplate who we are and what we are as we move into the 21st century.

• "We need to redefine what it means to be on the margins of the Anglican institutions ... to transform our understanding of what it means to be marginalized," she said. "Are we victims or vanguards on the margins?"

 blacks can increase power on the margins by always being visible. "Most people of the dominant group in the Episcopal Church are people of good will and fairness ... but even people of good will could ignore the pressing problems of those on the margins if we don't make our voices and needs resolutely heard and known.

 hopes blacks will bring their gifts of moral courage and preaching the gospel to call for future change. "We have to call the church to walk its talk. We have to lead others to have the courage to transform the society into places of inclusivity, equity, justice and peace so that we might become a beloved community where racism, sexism, heterosexism and other '-isms' exists no more." |






Black Theology: The Changing Face of Liberation

Reverend Alan L. Joplin, B.A., M.A., M.A.T., M.S., M.A.R.


Liberation theology should be viewed as a family of theologies which includs the Latin American liberation theologians who speaks to their poverty-stricken people who have been oppressed and exploited by rich, capitalist nations ( Spainish, Hispanic, Chicano, Central and South America), Black liberation theologians argue that their people have suffered oppression at the hands of racist whites. (American, Africa and the Carribbeans) Womenist (Black Female Thought) and Feminist (White Female Thought) liberation theologians lay heavy emphasis on the status and liberation of women in a male-dominated society. and Gay Theology which speaks t the differnt sexual orientation. All five respond to some form of oppression.

For the purpose of this presentation we will consontrate only look at those issues centered around Black Christian Thought which grew out of slavery or what we know today as Black Theology.

In the beginnings of black theology, while it was just emerging, the first and most evident source of oppression of blacks was white racism. So racism became its primary target, while black theology's support, ( Africa and the Carribbeans for socialism remained under the surface. However as black theology developed, writers like Cone and West recognized the value of a Marxist critique of the capitalist system, and integrated that into black theology and now call for a total liberation of black people from both racism, capitalism, and imperialism.











The Goal of a Black Theology of Liberation


What is the goal of a black theology of liberation? Is it a society in which blacks are given special treatment and rights? No. All Black theologians are asking for is for freedom and justice. No more, and no less. In asking for this, the Black theologians, turn to scripture as the sanction for their demand. The Psalmist writes for instance, "If God is going to see righteousness established in the land, he himself must be particularly active as 'the helper of the fatherless' (Psalm 10:14) to 'deliver the needy when he crieth; and the poor that hath no helper' (Psalm 72:12).

Karl Barth--who was not black--recognized the legitimacy of this demand. "For this reason, Barth wrote, "in the relations and events in the life of his people, God always takes his stand unconditionally and passionately on this side alone: against the lofty and on behalf of the lowly; against those who already enjoy right and privilege and on behalf of those who are denied it and deprived of it."

Black liberation theologians do not intend to allow the church--whether it be white or black--to evade this responsibility. It "cannot say that the poor are in poverty because they will not work, or that they suffer because they are lazy. Having come before God as nothing and being received by him into his Kingdom through grace, the Christian should know that he has been made righteous (justified) so that he (or she) can join God in the fight for justice. Therefore, whoever fights for the poor, fights for God; whoever risks his life for the helpless and unwanted, risks his life for God."

Precisely what this entails is not always clear to whites. For them, loving one's neighbor "becomes emotional and sentimental. This sentimental, condescending love accounts for their desire to "help" by relieving the physical pains of the suffering blacks so they can satisfy their own religious piety and keep the poor powerless." But advocates of a black theology of liberation will not allow whites to get off so easy. "Authentic love is not 'help,'" Cone writes, "not giving Christmas baskets, but working for political, social, and economic justice, which always means a redistribution of power. It is the kind of power which enables blacks to fight their own battles and thus keep their dignity."





























MARXIST INFLUENCES

Marxism has also exerted a profound influence on liberation theologians. This should not be taken to mean that they have espoused Marxism as a holistic plan of political action, for they have not. Their interest has been limited to using Marxist categories for social analysis.

According to Marx, man once existed in a simple, primitive state. At that time, there was happiness and tranquility. This primitive state of happiness was disrupted, however, by the rise of economic classes where one class sought to oppress and exploit another for its own economic advantage. Marx believed all of man's problems are the direct result of this class exploitation. He portrayed capitalism as the chief culprit that gave rise to this undesirable state of affairs.

Marx was adamant that man can never be truly happy or free in a capitalistic society. Man, he said, has become an alienated being and does not feel "at home" in a capitalistic environment. However, this alienation will not last forever. Marx believed that history is inexorably moving toward a climactic day when the oppressed workers of the world, the proletariat, will rise up and overthrow their capitalistic oppressors, the bourgeoisie. In the place of the old bourgeois society with its classes and class antagonisms, there will be a harmonious society in which there is equity for all.

Bonhoeffer, liberation theologians say theology must start with a "view from below" - that is, with the sufferings of the oppressed. Within this broad framework, different liberation theologians have developed distinctive methodologies for "doing" theology.










THE DEVELOPMENT OF BLACK LIBERATIONIST THOUGHT

It was not long before slave theology gave rise to black activism. There are many important figures who contributed to the cause of black liberation throughout black history. We can only mention a few here.

Nat Turner (1800-1831) was the most notorious slave preacher who ever lived on American soil. Turner's hatred of slavery propelled him to seek freedom by violence. Indeed, Turner killed nearly sixty white people before being captured and hanged in
September, 1831. This violent revolt marked the beginning of the black struggle for liberation.

Marcus Garvey (1887-1940) is regarded by many as "the apostle of black theology in the United States of America."[9] Martin Luther King, Jr., said Garvey "was the first man on a mass scale and level to give millions of Negroes a sense of dignity and destiny, and make the Negro feel he is somebody."[10] Garvey was one of the firsts to speak of seeing God through black "spectacles."

Howard Thurman, in his book Jesus and the Disinherited (1949), saw black life paralleling Jesus' life because His poverty identified Him with the poor masses. Thurman also noted that Jesus was a member of a minority group (the Jews) in the midst of a larger and controlling dominant group (the Romans). Thurman thus drew many applications for the black experience from the life of Jesus.

James Foreman- Blacks rebelled against racism and their imposed poverty during the Civil Rights movements, with the radicals rallying around the slogan: Black Power! Black theology allied itself with this Black Power movement that was clearly calling for a new economic order.

James Foreman, in his "Black Manifesto", a call for economic justice and for a beginning of reparations that was read at the Riverside church in NYC in 1969, saw clearly that liberation would not work within a capitalist system: Any black man or Negro who is advocating a perpetuation of capitalism inside the United States is in fact seeking not only his ultimate destruction and death but is contributing to the continuous exploitation of black people all around the world. He realized that there was a strong linkage between racism and capitalism, two forms of oppression that were both part of the same package that the black power and black theology movements were opposing.

Unlike others who were more concerned with opposing the current system then creating a new vision, he explicitly called for a new socialist economic system as a crucial goal for the liberation of blacks: "Our fight is against racism, capitalism, and imperialism, and we are dedicated to building a socialist society inside the United Sates where the total means of production and distribution are in the hands of the State, and that must be led by black people, by revolutionary blacks who are concerned about the total humanity of this world." (Foreman 29)


Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968) was America's most visible civil rights leader from 1955 until his assassination in April 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee. Though he cannot be called a formal participant in the black theology movement, he nevertheless roused the conscience of black America to passionate commitment to liberation.

King was an advocate of Ghandian nonviolent social change. Through nonviolent suffering, King believed that "blacks would not only liberate themselves from the necessity of bitterness and the feeling of inferiority toward whites, but would also prick the conscience of whites and liberate them from a feeling of superiority."[11] To some, King's assassination indicated that nonviolence as a means of liberation had failed and that perhaps a more revolutionary theology was needed.

Albert Cleage was one of the more militant black writers of the1960s. His claim to fame was The Black Messiah, a 1968collection of sermons in which he set forth his brand of Black Nationalism.

Cleage rejected the Pauline books in the New Testament. He said that - in contrast to the black Messiah - there was a spiritualized Jesus constructed by the apostle Paul who "never knew Jesus and who modified his teaching to conform to the pagan philosophers of the white gentiles. We, as black Christians suffering oppression in a white man's land, do not need the individualistic and other-worldly doctrines of Paul and the white man."[12]

Cornel West- Starting in the late Seventies, writers like Cornel West and James Cone began to integrate the Marxist critique of capitalism into black theology. In his essay, "Black Theology and Marxist Thought," Cornel West calls out for the need for the two to come together and to focus on critiquing their common enemy. First he
questions the use of the term "liberation". Do blacks only seek to imitate middle class whites and permit vast economic inequalities to continue to exist (West 413, vol. 1)? Or does black theology have something to say about the dual economic exploiting doctrines of capitalism and imperialism? (West 413, vol. 1) He argues that black theology has in the past concentrated more on opposing the current dominant paradigm than on proposing an alternative, and for that reason it has neglected
economic justice (West 413, vol. 1).

West argues that class is actually the dominant cause of alienation and this can be seen by the fact that working class whites are also affected (West 416, vol. 1). Finally he sees that the same forces are aligned behind capitalism and racism against the liberation of blacks (West 414, vol. 1). It is all one fight. Cornel West in a second essay, "Black Theology of Liberation: a Critique of Capitalist Civilization," calls for a shift in black theology to one that recognizes the validity of the Marxist critique of capitalism and the need for a new socialist order. He recognizes Christianity's prophetic tradition of speaking out against oppression (West 411, vol. 2) and notes Christianity's focus on self fulfilment, a concept that is incompatible with any form of discrimination (West 420, vol. 2). West is not an utopian and recognizes that sin and imperfection will exist, but believes that a revolution, likely an armed struggle, will lead to the establishment of a socialist society that he hopes will combine the best of the Marxist and Christian traditions (West 421-422, vol. 2)

James Cone- According to Cone, Marxism had been neglected because it has been associated with racist whites (Cone 273), viewed as a fringe ideology, associated with Russia in a time of anticommunism, viewed as atheist and a direct threat to Christianity, and seen as overly sectarian (Cone 176-178). In face of these negatives, Cone's interest in Marxism was renewed through contact with Latin American theology (Cone 177). From there he began to recognize the validity of the Marxist critique, agreeing that Christianity had been used as an opium of the masses (Cone 181). Furthermore he affirms that black liberation theology is in clear support of the poor: "All proponents of liberation theology contend that the masses are not poor by accident. They are made and kept poor by the rich and powerful few." (Cone 393) Finally Cone directly affirms black theology and being compatible with Marxist political values: "No one can be a follower of Jesus Christ without a political commitment that expresses one's solidarity with victims." (Cone 187)































The Problem With Praxis

Foundationally, the liberation hermeneutic (which makes praxis the first step, and theology the second) is completely without any controlling exegetical criteria. Vernon C. Grounds is right when he says that "there is no exegetical magic by which new meanings can without limit be conjured out of the Bible under the illuminating creativity of new situations."[45]

In liberation theology, the basic authority in interpretation ceases to be Scripture; it is rather the mind of the interpreter as he "reads" the current historical situation. It is one of the canons of literary (not just scriptural) hermeneutics, however, that what a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to alteration by readers. "Meaning is determined by the author; it is discovered by readers."[46]

Only after the meaning has been discovered by the reader can it be applied to the current situation. Certainly we all agree that Christians must practice their faith in daily life. But from a Scriptural perspective, the way a Christian conducts his or her life is based on the objective, propositional revelation found in Scripture. Christians must know God's will as revealed in Scripture before they can act on it. Without a preeminence of Scripture over praxis, the Christian cannot know what to believe or what to do. Evangelicals therefore reject any suggestion that "we must do in order to know, and hope that orthodoxy will arise from orthopraxis [right action]."

An examination of Jesus' use of the Old Testament shows that He interpreted it as objective, propositional revelation (see Matt. 22:23-33). His hermeneutic knew nothing of making praxis the first step for discovering theological truth.

Theology is not just to be learned, it is to be done. In his thinking, "praxis" is the starting point for theology. Praxis (from the Greek prasso: "to work") involves revolutionary action on behalf of the poor and oppressed - and out of this, theological perceptions will continually emerge. The theologian must therefore be immersed in the struggle for transforming society and proclaim his message from that point.

In the theological process, then, praxis must always be the first stage; theology is the second stage. Theologians are not to be mere theoreticians, but practitioners who participate in the ongoing struggle to liberate the oppressed.

Black Theology's Call for Economic Justice. How do economics and the search for a new just economic order fit in with the goals of black theology? Does black theology focus solely on exposing and eliminating racism or does it also speak out against economic injustice?

If one examines the history of blacks in America, the setting from which black theology emerged, the terminology that it uses, and the later writings of James Cone and Cornel West, then it becomes clear that inherent in black theology is a call for a new economic system that would reduce the harmful effects of capitalism.

Background -Black theology is a popular theology, designed not for an intellectual ruling elite but instead for tens of millions of working class blacks in the United States. It emerges from their experiences of hundreds of years of white racism and economic exploitation, two forms of discrimination that are inseparable and which still exist in our time.

Terminology-Black theology emerged from the civil rights movement of the 1960's and therefore it shared the general goals of protesters of that era. It latched on to the radical end of the civil rights movement, favored Malcolm over Martin, and used terms like "liberation", "Black Power", and even "revolution". So while Black Theology did not explicitly call for economic change, the terms it used clearly proved what side it was on. How could a movement favor liberation and agree that economic inequalities should be allowed to continue? Those two beliefs are clearly incompatible! Especially when given the fact that blacks were themselves the primary victims of the inequality. Does not liberation carry with it a clear message of economic liberation in addition to the stated goal of racial liberation?

How could black theologians talk about revolution and agree to maintain the primary system of control, that of capitalism? Revolution would clearly be associated with new left ideology and of past revolutions in countries like Cuba, China, and Russia. The call for revolution was synonymous with advocating socialism.

Slavery-When discussing black experience in the United States one must first remember that for over a hundred years slavery has dehumanized blacks and it has shaped the racial and economic relations that exist today. Slavery determined that black and whites would be socially divided from the time of the founding of the United States. It did not exist solely due to white racism and a 'need' to be superior then blacks. Instead slavery existed to get blacks to work at bare subsistence levels so that white plantation owners could earn large profits. This guiding force behind slavery, a doctrine of minimizing wages and maximizing exploitation, was capitalism.

After Slavery-Slavery was theoretically abolished by President Lincoln during the Civil War, but a new kind of slavery replaced it. Freed slaves found themselves suddenly in a capitalist economy "full of opportunity", but they were without capital. Many former slaves returned to work the fields as sharecroppers and got raw deals in the face of whites who owned all of the land while they themselves had none. After Emancipation blacks continued to face discrimination as they were segregated into jobs that were more dangerous and paid less than those reserved for whites.

Blacks currently serve a role as an army of unemployed that can be used by bosses to threaten unions to keep wages low or lose their jobs. Current discrimination is evident in the fact that blacks are fired in disproportionate numbers during an economic recession and always face greater rates of unemployment than whites.

A Theology of Liberation, provides us with a representative methodology. Like other liberationists, I rejects the idea that theology is a systematic collection of timeless and culture-transcending truths that remains static for all generations. Rather, theology is in flux; it is a dynamic and ongoing exercise involving contemporary insights into knowledge, humanity, and history.

Sin. liberationists interpret sin not primarily from an individual, private perspective, but from a social and economic perspective. "Sin is not considered as an individual, private, or merely interior reality. Sin is regarded as a social, historical fact, the absence of brotherhood and love in relationships among men."[4]

The use of violence has been one of the most controversial aspects of liberation theology. Such violence is not considered sinful if it is used for resisting oppression. Indeed, certain iberation theologians "will in some cases regard a particular action (e.g., killing) as sin if it is committed by an oppressor, but not if it is committed by the oppressed in the struggle to remove inequities. The removal of inequities is believed to result in the removal of the occasion of sin [i.e., the oppressor] as well."[6]

Salvation. Salvation is viewed not primarily in terms of life after death for the individual, but in terms of bringing about the kingdom of God: a new social order where there will be equality for all. This is not to deny eternal life per se, but it is to emphasize that the eternal and the temporal "intersect" in liberation theology. "If, as the traditional formulation has it, history and eternity are two parallel (i.e., nonintersecting) realms, our goal within history is to gain access to eternity."[7] But if history and eternity intersect, "if salvation is moving into a new order--then we must strive against everything which at present denies that order."[8]

Liberation theologians say the church's mission is no longer one of a "quantitative" notion of saving numbers of souls.[13] Rather, the church's mission "is at all times to protest against injustice, to challenge what is inhuman, to side with the poor and the oppressed."[14]

Related to the doctrine of the church has been the formation and growth of "ecclesial base communities," since the 1970s. These are "small, grassroots, lay groups of the poor or the ordinary people, meeting to pray, conduct Bible studies, and wrestle concretely with social and political obligations in their settings."[15]

Liberationists view capitalist nations as sinful specifically because they have oppressed and exploited poorer nations.Capitalist nations have become prosperous, they say, at the expense of impoverished nations. This is often spoken of in terms of "dependency theory" - that is, the development of rich countries depends on the underdevelopment of poor countries.

There is another side to sin in liberation theology. Those who are oppressed can and do sin by acquiescing to their bondage. To go along passively wit oppression rather than resisting and attempting to overthrow it - by violent means if necessary - is sin.[5]

Indeed, they have become "the major vehicle for the spread of liberation themes beyond academic circles.

God. Liberationists argue that the traditional Christian doctrine of God manipulates the divine being such that He appears to favor the capitalistic social structure. They claim the orthodox view of God is rooted in the ancient Greeks who saw God as a static being - distant and remote from human history. This distorted view of a transcendent deity has, they say, yielded a theology that understands God as "out there," far removed from the affairs of humankind. As a result, many Latin Americans have adopted a passive stance in the face of their oppression and exploitation.

Jesus Christ. While liberation theologians do not outright deny Christ's deity, there is no clear-cut, unambiguous confession that Jesus is God. The significance of Jesus Christ lies in His example of struggling for the poor and the outcast. The Incarnation is reinterpreted to represent God's total immersion into man's history of conflict and oppression. By His words and actions, Jesus showed us how to become true sons of God - that is, by bringing in the kingdom of God through actively pursuing the liberation of the oppressed.

Most liberationists see Jesus' death on the cross as having no vicarious value; rather, Jesus died because He upset the religious/political situation of His time. Leonardo Boff says Jesus' followers fabricated the idea that Jesus' death had a transcendent, salvific significance: "The historically true events are the crucifixion, the condemnation by Pilate, and the inscription on the cross in three languages known by the Jews.

The rest of the events are theologized or are pure theology developed in light of the resurrection and of the reflection upon the Old Testament."[10] Jesus' death is unique because "he historicizes in exemplary fashion the suffering experienced by God in all the crosses of the oppressed."[11] Liberationists acknowledge Jesus' resurrection, but they are not clear on its significance.

The Church. Liberation theology does not ask what the church is, but rather what it means "to be the church in a context of extreme poverty, social injustice and revolution. In the context of liberation theology the mission of the church seems to be more important than its nature."[12]



































"Black Theology, Black Power, and the Black Experience"


Between 1517 and 1840 it is estimated that twenty million blacks were captured in Africa, transported to America, and brutally enslaved. The experience of these blacks - and their descendants - serves as the backdrop for understanding contemporary black liberation theology.

During slave trading days, blacks were crammed into ships like sardines into a can and brought across the Atlantic. Many died at sea from dysentery, smallpox, and other diseases. "Some starved themselves to death refusing to eat. To prevent this form of suicide, hot coals were applied to the lips to force the slaves to open their mouths to eat."[1]

Upon arriving on American shores, the slaves - men, women, and children - were forced to work from sunrise to sunset. Even old and ailing slaves were forced to work.

The brutality shown to the slaves is among the saddest chapter sin American history. Black theologian Anthony Evans tells us that" black women were raped at will by their masters at the threat of death while their husbands could only look on. Families were separated as they were bought and sold like cattle."[2]

For tax purposes, slaves were counted as property - like domestic animals. Eventually, however, a question arose as to how to count slaves in the nation's population. The Congress solved the problem by passing a bill that authorized the U.S. Census Bureau to count each slave as three-fifths of a person. This Congressional compromise resulted in what one Negro writer of the 1890s called "the 'Inferior Race Theory,' the placing of the Negro somewhere between the barnyard animals and human beings."[3]

The christianization of slavery

Initially, there was heated resistance to evangelizing among slaves. Black scholar C. Eric Lincoln tells us there were three principal reasons for this: "(1) the hearing of the gospel required time that could be economically productive; (2) slaves gathered together in a religious assembly might become conscious of their own strength and plot insurrections under cover of religious instruction; (3) there was an English tradition of long standing that once a slave became a Christian he could no longer be helda slave."[4]

In addition, many whites were repulsed at the suggestion that blacks could go to heaven. Morgan Godwyn, a graduate of Oxford University who served in churches in Virginia around1665, wrote that slave masters would commonly exclaim, "What, such as they? What, those black dogs be made Christians? What, shall they be like us?"[5]

Some whites tried to argue that blacks were less than human. Buckener H. Payne, in his book The Negro: What Is His Ethnological blacks are present with us today, they must have been in the ark. There were only eight souls saved in the ark, how ever, and they are fully accounted for by Noah's family. As one of the beasts in the ark, the black has no soul to be saved."[6] So why try to evangelize them?

Regardless of such preposterous arguments, missionary work eventually began among the slaves in the early 1700s and many of them became Christians. The brand of Christianity that was preached to them, however, was one that justified slavery. It was argued that Paul and other New Testament writers issued specific instructions for master-slave relations, thus apparently sanctioning the practice. Moreover, a curse of slavery was placed on the "sons of Ham" (Gen. 9:20-27) - who were interpreted to be blacks. Furthermore, slavery was considered a" religious good," for it amounted to importing unsaved heathens to a Christian land where they could hear the gospel and be saved.

(However, though Paul gave instructions on master-slave relations, his underlying belief was that slaves should be freed [1Cor. 7:21]. Moreover, a curse of slavery was placed only on Ham's son, Canaan - whose descendants later occupied Phoenicia and Palestine. They were Caucasians. As for slavery being a "religious good," this seems an absurd claim in view of the cruel, inhuman treatment shown to the slaves.)

Most blacks accepted the slave brand of Christianity at face value. Moreover, white missionaries persuaded the blacks that life on earth was insignificant because "obedient servants of God could expect a reward in heaven after death."[7] The white interpretation of Christianity effectively divested the slaves of any concern they might have had about their freedom in the present.

As more blacks began attending white Christian churches, restrictions in seating, communion services, and property ownership caused many blacks to seek autonomy in their own congregations and ultimately, separate denominations. So, by the mid-1700s, black slaves had begun meeting in private to worship since authentic worship with whites was impossible. There is sufficient historical evidence to conclude that themes later developed by black liberation theologians were present in these early slave meetings in at least a nascent form.

For example, God was interpreted by the slaves as a loving Father who would eventually deliver them from slavery just as He had delivered Israel from Egyptian bondage. Jesus was considered both a Savior and an elder brother who was a fellow sufferer.

Heaven had a dual implication for black slaves. Yes, it referred to the future life, but it also came to refer to a state of liberation in the present. Because of the risk involved in preaching liberation, the slave learned how to sing liberation in the very presence of his master:

"Swing low, sweet chariot (underground railroad conestoga wagon)

Coming for to carry me home (up North to freedom)

Swing low (come close to where I am), Sweet chariot

Coming for to carry me home.

I looked over Jordan (Ohio River - border between North

and South) And what did I see, Coming for to carry me home

A band of angels (northern emancipators with the underground)

coming after me. Coming for to carry me home."[



THE EMERGENCE OF A FORMAL "BLACK THEOLOGY"

Over one hundred and thirty years after Nat Turner was hanged, black theology emerged as a formal discipline. Beginning with the "black power" movement in 1966, black clergy in many major denominations began to reassess the relationship of the Christian church to the black community. Black caucuses developed in the Catholic, Presbyterian, and Episcopal churches. "The central thrust of these new groups was to redefine the meaning and role of the church and religion in the lives of black people. Out of this reexamination has come what some have called a 'Black Theology.'"[13]

For the first time in the history of black religious thought, black clergy (primarily educated, middle-class black clergy) and black theologians began to recognize the need for a completely new" starting point" in theology. They insisted that this starting point must be defined by people at the bottom and not the top of the socioeconomic ladder. So, black theologians began to re-read the Bible through the eyes of their slave grandparents and started to speak of God's solidarity with the oppressed of the earth.

The most prolific and sophisticated writer of this new theological movement has been James Cone. No one has matched him either in terms of sheer volume of writing, or in terms of the challenge posed by his books. For this reason, we shall examine his theology in depth.

James Cone: Theologian of Black Liberation

In assessing the theology of James Cone, it is critical to recognize that he sees black experience as the fundamental starting point for ascertaining theological truth. And his own writings are a reflection of his own "black experience" - that is, the discrimination he suffered while growing up as a child in Bearden, Arkansas.

What was it like in Bearden? "It meant attending 'separate but equal' schools, going to the balcony when attending a movie, and drinking water from a 'colored' fountain. It meant refusing to retaliate when called a nigger unless you were prepared to leave town at the precise moment of your rebellion. You had no name except for your first name of 'boy.'"[14] Cone concedes that "mytheological reflections are inseparable from the Bearden experience. What I write is urged out of my blood."[15]

Cone says that "it is this 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 religious matters."[16]

From the above, one may immediately suspect that Cone has adeficient view of the authority of Scripture. Indeed, his view seems very close to the neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth, as when Cone writes: "It is true that the Bible is not the revelation of God, only Christ is. But it is an indispensable witness to God's revelation."[17] Moreover, "we should not conclude that the Bible is an infallible witness."[18] Cone believes the meaning of Scripture is not to be found in the words of Scripture as such, but only in its power to point beyond itself to the reality of God's" revelation," which - in America - takes place experientially in God's liberating work among blacks.

Black Theology and Black Power. Based on the preeminence of "black experience," Cone defines theology as" a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the gospel, which is Jesus Christ."[19] Cone's theology asks (and seeks to answer) 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?"[20]

In answering this pivotal question, 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."[21]

Cone says black theology is the religious counterpart of black power. "Black Theology is the theological arm of Black Power, and Black Power is the political arm of Black Theology."[22]And, "while Black Power focuses on the political, social, and economic condition of black people, Black Theology puts black identity in a theological context."[23]

We gain insights about what Cone means by "black theology" and "black power" by understanding what blackness means in his theology. Cone notes two aspects of blackness: the physiological and ontological. In the first sense, "black" indicates a physiological trait. It refers to "a particular black-skinned people in America."[24]

In the second sense, "black" and "white" relate not to skin pigmentation but to "one's attitude and action toward the liberation of the oppressed black people from white racism."[25]Blackness is thus "an ontological symbol for all people who participate in the liberation of man from oppression."[26] Seen in this light, "blackness" can be attributed to people who do not have black skin but who do work for liberation.

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 symbolizes sickness and oppression. White theology is therefore viewed as a theological extension of that sickness and oppression.[27]

Having established that the black experience is the governing principle in Cone's interpretation of Scripture, it is important tounder stand how this governing principle has affected his views of specific doctrines.

God. Cone bases much of his liberationist theology on God's deliverance of Israel from oppression under the Egyptians. He says that the consistent theme in Israelite prophecy is Yahweh's concern for "the lack of social, economic, and political justice for those who are poor and unwanted in the society."[28]

This same God, Cone argues, is working for the deliverance of oppressed blacks in twentieth-century America. Because God is helping oppressed blacks and has identified with them, God Himself is spoken of as "black."

Black theology's dominant perspective on God is "God in action, delivering the oppressed because of His righteousness. He is to be seen, not in the transcendent way of Greek philosophy, but immanent, among His people."[29] God is "immanent" in the sense that He is met in concrete historical situations of liberation.

This is very similar to the idea of the immanence of God in process theology. Indeed, process theologian David Ray Griffin, while recognizing important differences between process and black theology, has suggested that "process philosophy supports liberation theologians in locating the reality of God's presence and creative activity in this world."[30]

Jesus Christ. Cone's intention is to stand in the Chalcedonianradition in his understanding of Jesus Christ. The Chalcedonian creed (A.D. 451) affirmed that Christ is "truly God and truly man." Cone agrees with this, but adds that the role of Jesus as God-Incarnate was to liberate the oppressed: Jesus Christ "is God himself coming into the very depths of human existence for the sole purpose of striking off the chains of slavery, there by freeing man from ungodly principalities and powers that hinder his relationship with God."[31]

One of the more controversial aspects of Cone's Christology is his view that Jesus was (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, baby, with all of the features which are so detestable to white society" (emphasis in original).[32]

Cone believes it is very important for black people to view Jesus as black: "It's very important because you've got a lot of white images of Christ. In reality, Christ was not white, not European. That's important to the psychic and to the spiritual consciousness of black people who live in a ghetto and in a white society in which their lord and savior looks just like people who victimize them. God is whatever color God needs to be in order to let people know they're not nobodies, they're somebodies."[33]

For Cone, the Resurrection of the black Jesus - a real event -symbolizes universal freedom for all who are bound. It is not just a future-oriented hope in a heavenly compensation for earthly woes. Rather, it is a hope that focuses on the future in such a way that it prevents blacks from tolerating present inequities.[34] This is closely related to Cone's understanding of eschatology (more on this shortly).

Sin and Salvation. In Cone's view, sin is "a condition of human existence in which man denies the essence of God's liberating activity as revealed in Jesus Christ."[35] In this view, sin is anything that is contrary to the oppressed community or its liberation.

Salvation for Cone primarily has to do with earthly reality, not heavenly hopes. "To see the salvation of God is to see this people [i.e., the blacks] rise up against their oppressors, demanding that justice become a reality now and not tomorrow."[36] Hence, though Cone often speaks of Jesus as the Liberator, in practical terms he emphasizes the human work of self-liberation among blacks and downplays divine help.

The Church. Cone believes the black church has played an instrumental role in the religious and social life of black America. He says the black church was the creation of a black people "whose daily existence was an encounter with the overwhelming and brutalizing reality of white power. For the slaves it was the sole source of identity and the sense of community. The black church became the only sphere of black experience that was free of white power."[37]

Still, Cone believes that - since the days of slavery - the black church has largely capitulated to the demands of a white racist society. He argues that in order to survive, the black churches have given up their freedom and dignity. After the Civil War, black churches became passive in the struggle for civil rights and freedom while currying favors from the white establishment. This condition, Cone says, has persisted up to the present day, rendering the black church "the lifeless pawn of the status quo."[38]

Only faithfulness to the "pre-Civil War black church tradition" will issue in "an exclusive identification with black power," Cone believes. He says that a continued emphasis on black power is "the only hope of the black church in America."[39] (Though "black power" as a movement faded after the 1960s, the primary emphasis of the movement - the dignity, freedom, and self-determination of black people - has continued in Cone's theological writings. It is this emphasis that Cone says has been missing in many black churches.)

Eschatology. Cone rejects what he terms the "white lie" that Christianity is primarily concerned with life in the next world: "If eschatology means that one believes that God is totally uninvolved in the suffering of man because he is preparing them for another world, then black theology is not eschatological. Black theology has hope for this life."[40]

Cone asks what good there is in golden crowns, slippers, and white robes "if it means that we have to turn our backs on the pain and suffering of our own children? Unless the future can become present, thereby forcing us to make changes in this world, what significance could eschatology have for black people who believe that their self-determination must become a reality now?"[41]

Revolution and Violence. I would be remiss to close this discussion of James Cone without noting his views on revolution and violence. Cone defines liberation as the "emancipation of black people from white oppression by whatever means black people deem necessary."[42] This definition would seem to allow for the use of violence.

Cone does not advocate armed revolution against white society But some violence, he says, seems unavoidable. He points out that "the Christian does not decide between violence and nonviolence, evil and good. He decides between the lesser and the greater evil. He must ponder whether revolutionary violence is less or more deplorable than the violence perpetuated by the system."[43] Injustice, slave labor, hunger, and exploitation are all violent forms that must be considered against the cost of revolutionary violence.

warning: "Unless the movement of black liberation theology reaches beyond its present location in an intellectual elite and gives more attention to a mass education of clergy and laity in the churches, the movement will continue to have minimal influence among its key constituencies."[



I want to begin by affirming that black theology has made some important contributions. I will mention only four here.



First, black
theology has reminded us that theology - if it is going to meet the
needs of twentieth century (and beyond) Christians - must find
practical expression in society.

Second, black theology has
reminded us that God is involved with His people in real-life
situations.

Third, black theology has focused our attention on the
need to reach out to others in the body of Christ who are
suffering.

And fourth, black theology serves as an indictment
against the racist views that have been all-too-often (but not
always) present among white people. These contributions are
important and extremely relevant.

What is the Black Church?

“Those independent, historic and totally Black controlled denominations, which were founded after the free African society of 1787 and which constituted the core of Black Christians”, while at the same time recognizing that, “any Black Christian person is included in “the Black Church” if he or she is a member of a Black Congregation.”

The Black Church is the plurality of formal institutions and network of ethnic caucuses and congregations of Black Christians that seek to preserve some historic continuity with African-American founders and forebears and some measure of separate identity, if not autonomy, from white controlled judicatories.

The general term “Black Church” or “Greater Black Church” refers to the sixteen to eighteen million Christians in the United States who booth claim and are recognized to have some degree of African ancestry and who are organized in congregation and other religious institutions in which African-American membership numerically predominates and is in control on the local level.

The “Black Church” is weighted toward cultural and social institutional factors. This use of the term came into vogue in the mid 1960’s when the designation “Negro” and “Colored” rejected the majority of urban middle class Blacks and “Blacks” began to connote pride in dark skin, ethnic solidarity, affirmation of the history of culture of African-American and militancy in the struggle against all forms of White racism “by any means necessary.”

What is “Black Theology?

Black theology is the embodiment of the insights and understanding of our theologians, our people who appropriated the Christian gospel and articulated its relevance to our need to our condition, to our struggle for freedom. Black theology affirms our children, youth and adults as subjects, not objectives. Black theology calls us to engage in critical thinking to look authentically at the world, and engage in action and reflection with a view to renew and to transform. Black theology emerged from the civil rights movement of the 1960's and therefore it shared the general goals of protesters of that era. It latched on to the radical end of the civil rights movement; it favored Malcolm over Martin, and used terms like "liberation", "Black Power", and "Revolution".

Black theology developed, writers like Cone and West recognized the value of a Marxist critique of the capitalist system, and integrated that into black theology and now calls for a total liberation of black people from racism, capitalism, and imperialism. Black Theology as it has expressed itself in the African-American community seeks to find a way to make the gospel relevant to black people who must struggle daily under the burden of white oppression. The question that confronts black theologians is not one that is easily answered. "What if anything does the Christian gospel have to say to powerless black men," to use James Cone's words, whose existence is "threatened on a daily basis by the insidious tentacles of white power?" If the gospel has nothing to say to people as they confront the daily realities of life, it is a lifeless message. If Christianity is not real for blacks, then they will reject it.

A Black Theology of Liberation

As the influence of the church on American society has waned, there have been those who have sought to make it more relevant to the real life concerns of individuals. This has been particularly true in the African-American community, where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave fresh meaning and relevance to the church during the period 1955-1968. Yet another effort to make the church relevant was that of liberation theology.

Liberation theology arose in the third world--specifically Latin America--where it was recognized that one's view of God and his action in the world can be profoundly altered by one's praxis or experience of life. The God of the wealthy israther different from the God worshipped in the barrios or slums of the major cities in such countries as Peru or Brazil. This idea that one's view of the gospel is shaped by one's location in life has taken firm root in certain groups in the United States, and specifically among blacks and women.

Black Theology

Liberation theology as it has expressed itself in the African-American community seeks to find a way to make the gospel relevant to black people who must struggle daily under the burden of white oppression. The question that confronts these black theologians is not one that is easily answered. "What if anything does the Christian gospel have to say to powerless black men," to use James Cone's words, whose existence is "threatened on a daily basis by the insidious tentacles of white power?" If the gospel has nothing to say to people as they confront the daily realities of life, it is a lifeless message. If Christianity is not real for blacks, then they will reject it.

There are many reasons why Christianity has not been real for blacks. To begin with, white Christianity emphasizes individualism, and divides the world into separate realms of the sacred and secular, public and private. Such a view of the world is alien to African-American spirituality. The Christianity that was communicated to blacks had as its primary focus life in world to come. This was at odds with traditional African spirituality which was focused on life in the present world. And if that were not enough, Christianity is hopelessly associated with slavery and segregation in the minds of many African-Americans.

More importantly, there are reasons to believe that many African-Americans are beginning to reject Christianity. The growing presence of Islam in the African-American community is nurtured by a variety of forces, but one of its principle sources of strength is the sense within many blacks of a tremendous gap that exists between what takes place in the Church on Sunday, and how church people live the rest of the week. Many of the new converts to Islam were Christian, but they testify to seeing little coherence between the worship of the church, and the rough and tumble world of the streets the rest of the week.

One element of Islam that has attracted many African-Americans is the fact that Muslims have a strong reputation for living what they preach. Whereas church members might spend much of their week hanging out and drinking, Muslims demonstrate discipline, respect, and personal integrity that many in the black community feel is lacking among many members of the church. In a similar fashion, the Muslim claim that Christianity was imposed on blacks by the slave holders has struck a sensitive nerve in the black community, and has aided them in the effort to win new converts. Growing numbers of blacks have accepted the proposition that Islam was the original faith of African-Americans. As a result, the same forces driving Afro-centrism are also prompting many blacks to explore their roots in Islam.

In the face of all this, the question that confronts the advocates of a black theology of liberation is somewhat intimidating. "Can one still be black, and believe in the biblical tradition as expressed in the Old and New Testaments?" Can the Christian faith be stripped of the interpretations given these sacred texts by whites, and be made real for black men and women?

The Starting Point for a Black Theology of Liberation

To develop a theology that speaks to African-Americans, black liberation theologians such as James Cone begin with the person of Jesus, and specifically the Jesus revealed in the Gospel of Luke. In Luke's gospel, Jesus has a concern for the oppressed that does not always come through in the other gospels. Luke's Jesus begins his ministry with this announcement:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18-19)

From this text, Cone draws a fundamental lesson about Jesus: his "work is essentially one of liberation." Jesus inaugurates "an age of liberation in which 'the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the good news preached to them.'" (Luke 7:22) "In Christ," Cone argues, "God enters human affairs and takes sides with the oppressed. Their suffering becomes his; their despair, divine despair."

Cone continues his line of argument with a force that cuts to the marrow of contemporary American Christianity: "Jesus had little toleration for the middle- or upper-class religious snob whose attitude attempted to usurp the sovereignty of God and destroy the dignity of the poor," Cone writes, "The Kingdom is not for the poor and not the rich because the former has nothing to expect from the world while the latter's entire existence is grounded in his commitment to worldly things. The poor man may expect everything from God, while the rich man may expect nothing because he refuses to free himself from his own pride. It is not that poverty is a pre-condition for entrance into the Kingdom. But those who recognize their utter dependence on God, and wait on him despite the miserable absurdity of life are typically the poor, according to Jesus."

When black people hear this message, Cone insists, they discover a message that resonates with their experience of life. Their experience of struggling for liberation is the same as the struggle of Christ himself. And if Jesus was resurrected, and is now alive, then he is now fighting for the very same things, working against the structures of injustice.

The Great Satan

In the New Testament, Jesus comes into the world to destroy the works of Satan. If the preceding identification of the struggle of Jesus and that of African-Americans seeking liberation is true, then there must also be a Satan in the contemporary picture. Black Theology does not get bogged down in quaint personifications of Satan (the current issue of Newsweek has a wonderful article on Satan, by the way), but sees him at work in the powers and principalities of this world that would enslave and demean human beings. And the most demonic of these powers in the black experience is that of racism.

Cone writes: "Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.' The white structure of this American society, personified in every racist, must be at least part of what the New Testament meant by demonic forces...Ironically, the man who enslaves another enslaves himself...To be free to do what I will in relation to another is to be in bondage to the law of least resistance. This is the bondage of racism. Racism is that bondage in which whites are free to beat, rape, or kill blacks. About thirty years ago it was acceptable to lynch a black man by hanging him from a tree; but today whites destroy him by crowding him into a ghetto and letting filth and despair put the final touches on death."

James Cone wrote those words in 1968, and while they are dated, they still convey a powerful truth. What happened to Rodney King at the hands of the Los Angeles police continues to happen to black men with disturbing frequency. The jails and prisons are filling with black men. One third of all black men are now under the jurisdiction of the courts or prison system. And one of the principle reasons are drug laws designed to punish with mandatory prison terms those who use "rock cocaine" (the principle form of cocaine used in the black community because it is relatively inexpensive), while penalties for possession of the powder form (the form used by wealthy whites) are largely financial, and do not require one to serve time. Why would society design a criminal justice system with such disparate impact? Cone and many blacks would lay the blame at the feet of the demonic force of racism.



Some Closing Comments

Many whites, myself included, can be put off by advocates of a black theology of
liberation. We would much prefer the approach of Martin Luther King, Jr. because
his approach was the least threatening to the white power structure, and to our own
understanding of ourselves. Many whites identified with him precisely because he
did not challenge their own racism directly, and allowed them to assuage their own
sense of guilt with little or no risk.

But I would be willing to contend that if the great chasm that separates the races in
this nation is to ever be bridged, it will require that we bring to the discussion
something more than good intentions, or pious words about making sure everyone
is treated with equity. Not only will we have to bring to the conversation a
willingness to try to understand the pain African-Americans feel, but we will also
have to recognize that we are so intimately involved in a racist system, that we are
often oblivious to the degree that we have caused or continue to cause that pain.

Perhaps the real test of whether whites can communicate with blacks as human
beings is not what we might say to a Colin Powell, who--like King--does not
challenge whites to confront their racism, but rather how we choose to respond to a
Louis Farrakhan who challenges us in ways we would prefer not to be challenged.


What has the “Black Experience” taught African Americans that would be useful in the creation of a new historical future for all oppressed people?

There are a number of things we have been taught but for years we never really understood it in relationship to our role and position in this society.

1. We have learned that the sickness of the church in America is also found in the mainstream of American religious thought.

2. As with the Church as a whole, theology remains conspicuously silent regarding the place of the black man in American society, and for those who spoke their voices were unclear.

3. The problem of color was simply ignored in America.

4. The sickness of the church in America is intimately involved with the bankruptcy of American theology.

5. The church has failed to live up too its appointed mission.

6. The lack of relevancy of theology for its failure to perform its function.

7. American theology has failed to take worldly risk

Our task in the church is to make sure that the “church “ is the church. The mission of the church is to act out the gospel it has received. When the church fails in it’s appointed task by seeking to glorify itself rather than Jesus Christ, it is the our job and the job of theology to remind her of what the true mission of the church is, for theology is that discipline which has the responsibility of continually examining the proclamation of the church in light of Jesus Christ. Our responsibility is to revise and criticize the language of the church. This includes not only the language as uttered speech but also the language of radical involvement in the world. It is our task to make sure the church speaks thoroughly human speech, whether word or deed, agree with the essence of the church, that is with Jesus Christ who is “God in his gracious approach to man in revelation and reconciliation.

We must not allow the church to remain aloof from the world because Christ is in the world. We must work to development a “worldly theology.” This means that the church must be in the world and that its words and deeds re harmonious with Jesus Christ. We must make sure that Church language about God is relevant to every new generation and its problems. We must call the church to be involved in confronting this society with the meaning of the kingdom in light of Christ.


When Black Theology was given voice in 1970 with the publishing of Cone’s “ a Black Theology of Liberation, Many people decried it as an illegitimate view of Jesus and theology. For certain, it signaled a new perspective. Discuss this as a “new road to faith”

As Black exiles search in often an alien world for the ground of their being, this new road of faith will take us toward the building of community. Love will be recognized as a necessary to the foundation of this structure. This new road will demand new action on the part of those traveling:

1. We must be concerned for both the oppressed and the oppressor

2. We must understand a practice the teaching of when he said to love they neighbor as you love your self

3. W must be able to glory in the past as a gift of God before we can count it as garbage for the sake of the new family and community

4. A call for solidarity within the Black community; a call for communal identification among the black outcast of America

5. Our purpose in life should be to leave our community more beautiful than we found it

6. Like Paul we must clearly apprehend the things which are a par of our own racial and cultural heritage

7. We must be willing to encourage the discovery of roots long buried and rejected

8. We must insists that we as creatures of God be true to ourselves

9. We must celebrate the gifts of those once scorned as members of the black body

10. We must develop ourselves before we can do any thing for humanity

11. We as black people must call for an identification between black people and all the wretched nonwhites of the earth

12. Our faith/religion must be concern for those broken victims in their struggle to be free;

This new road to faith must be an affirmation of our being. We can no longer ignore the powerlessness of the Black community despite the repeated call for needed social programs. The formation of this new faith must emerge from the sense of community that affirms itself apart of the kingdom of God. Our faith must rise out of a communal experience with God as we seek to express our theology in language that speaks to the contemporary mood of black people. We must recognize what comes from seeing Jesus as liberator and the Gospel as freedom , which empowers us to risk our selves for freedom and our faith. This faith affirms in the midst of hostel and disbelieving society. We must exist by faith at all times and in all places.

The bible and poverty-Critics of liberation theology at times come across as though they are detached and unsympathetic to Latin American poverty. No doubt some of these critics actually do lack concern. Before offering criticisms of this controversial theology, therefore, it is important that we first affirm that there is a strong scriptural basis for helping the poor.

In the Old Testament, God gave the theocracy of Israel specific guidelines for taking care of the poor. He commanded that the corners of fields were not to be reaped so that something would be left for the needy to eat (Lev. 19:9-10).

God also promised a special blessing to all who gave to the poor (Prov. 19:17), and judgment to those who oppressed the poor (Ps. 140:12). Robbing and cheating the poor were condemned (Hosea 12:7). Widows and orphans - who were especially vulnerable to oppression - came under special protection from the law (Exod. 22:22-23).

God in the law also made provisions for poor sojourners who were not a part of Israel's theocracy. Gleanings from the harvest were to be left for them (Deut. 24:19-21), and they were ranked in the same category as widows and orphans as being defenseless (Ps. 94:6).

Jesus is very clear about our responsibility to the poor and oppressed. Christ's strong warning that eternal condemnation awaits those who do not feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the prisoners (Matt. 25:31-46) shows that the disadvantaged are not merely a peripheral concern of His. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus taught that anybody in need is our neighbor (Luke 10:29f.).

The biblical view of the poor and oppressed is such that God's people everywhere should be appalled at the poverty of the people in world. Liberation theologians and the people of world have a legitimate gripe. Indeed, how can the church not act to help relieve the suffering of its people?

Nevertheless, a legitimate and commendable concern for the poor and oppressed must never be used to justify a theological methodology that leads to a gross distortion of Christianity - the only true means of liberation.


Glossary

exegesis: Derived from a Greek word meaning "to draw out." Refers to the obtaining of a Scripture passage's meaning by drawing the meaning out from the text rather than reading it into the text (which is eisegesis).

hermeneutics: Refers to the science of interpretation. It is that branch of theology that prescribes rules and guidelines by which the Bible should be interpreted.

normative authority: Authority that is binding upon us in termsof what we are to believe and do.

praxis: From the Greek prasso (meaning "to work"), praxis involves revolutionary action on behalf of the poor and oppressed - and out of this, theological perceptions will (liberationists believe) continually emerge. In other words, praxis refers to the discovery and formation of theological "truth" out of a given historical situation through personal participation in the struggle for the liberation of the oppressed.

propositional revelation: The view that God in the Bible has communicated factual information (or propositions) about Himself; the view that God's special revelation in Scripture has been given in propositional statements.