I am reading from the 1990, 20th Anniversary
Edition. This volume includes a new section that features critical reflections
from several theologians who are specialists in the field of Liberation
Theology.
A. Preliminary notes for consideration
First, we must understand that Cone, a distinguished professor
of theology at Union Theological Seminary (NY), wrote this work at the height
of the Civil Rights Movement and from a “black perspective.” This means his
book must be read in its socio-political context and from the viewpoint of the
black community which has been oppressed and marginalized in the United States for
more than two centuries.
Second, the book’s intended audience is the black community
and not the Anglo community, which Cone identifies as the oppressors of blacks,
either directly or indirectly. Cone voices his frustrations as a Black
theologian, knowing he will be misunderstood as he seeks to explain the
redemptive nature of salvation history in the terms of an earthly liberation
for the subjugated and exploited masses, starting with the Exodus and extending
to the present time.
Third, because it was written in 1970, “A Black Theology of
Liberation” contains dated materials, although many principles that underlie
the book’s premise remain valid. Cone admits, for example, in the Preface of
the 20th anniversary edition that his original work was marred by
his lack of knowledge regarding the global dimension of oppression, ranging
from sexism to colonialism to crony capitalism. He also faulted his
methodological dependence on Karl Barth and other continental theologians. Likewise, he admits that at the time of the
writing he naïvely believed if racial integration succeeded then racism as a
practice would fall by the wayside. Obviously, it did not.
In his Preface Cone also explains that he has refused to
define the gospel in a non-offensive way, e.g. “Believe in Jesus if you want to
go to heaven.” Even a white racist can say “Amen” to that. Rather, the gospel, according
to Cone, includes a message of liberation for the oppressed in the here and
now, which is very much offensive to the oppressors.
B. Chapter 1 – Summary and Reflections
According to Cone, Christian theology is liberation
theology, which sets people free both spiritually and politically. As such, God
is the God of the oppressed. This means God is for the oppressed. In an
American context, God is for Blacks; hence, the term “Black Theology.”
Blackness, however, does not mean Blacks are the only people who suffer from
racism. Rather, blackness is an ontological symbol or visible reality of what
oppression looks like in America. It stands for all victims of domination and
promotes their liberation.
Jesus was and is the great liberator who sets the captives
free. Therefore, the gospel of Christ
takes on a prophetic role and challenges the social structures that bind
people. Since “White Theology” as a whole (whether of liberal or conservative)
has supported the political structures of oppression, it is anti-Christ in
nature.
Cone rejects the non-violent only approach to obtaining
peace and justice for all, believing that the strategy actually undergirds the
social and political interests of the White majority. Cone is open to an “all
acts” strategy, which includes protest and revolution. One might say he more in
line with a “Black Muslim” version of Malcolm X than Martin Luther King.
Thus far, I see two weaknesses in Cone’s orthopraxy, but not
his orthodoxy. First, any protestation that includes violence is ultimately doomed
to fail. Moses’s use of violence to free his people utterly failed, and set
back their liberation by 40 years. Jesus, the definitive example of a
liberator, refused to wield the tools of FORCE in order to conquer the
oppressors, but instead operated by FAITH. When Rome executed him as a
political subversive, it thought it had put an end to the Jesus movement. Three
days later, God honored Jesus’ faith and raised him from the dead. Who won the
victory—Jesus or Rome? Jesus could not be killed again nor his movement
conquered.
Violence may succeed in the short run, but only until the
opposition can raise up a new army of followers to fight another battle. This
is an undisputed truth of human history. God’s supreme plan for equality, peace
and justice (the universal kingdom of God on earth) is based solely on Jesus’
non-violent act of resistance, leading to his death and resurrection. Since God
used non-violence to institute his ultimate kingdom, why do we think our
violent actions will bring about a permanent end to oppression?
Second, I believe Cone is weak thus far (i.e. chapter 1) in
his ecclesiology. The local church is the sphere of the “already/not yet”
aspect of the kingdom, where liberation is found and experienced. Regardless of
the oppressor—Roman Imperialism, Nazism, Communism, White racism—all in Christ
find freedom in the church. This means that although we may be victimized and
marginalized in society by inequitable structures, when we come together to eat
and worship we are one in Christ. While differences remain— we do not cease to
be male or female, bond or free, Jew or Gentile, Black or White—there should be
no distinctions among us. In the church we are not only equal “in Christ,” but “in
reality.” When this dynamic is present, the church becomes a snapshot of what
the future kingdom will be like.
Having said this, I realize this is not normally the case.
Unfortunately, most churches reflect the values and structures of the world
rather than the kingdom of God. In my
book “Heaven on Earth: Experiencing the Kingdom of God in the Here and Now” I present
a workable model for functioning as a kingdom-oriented church.
In closing, let me say I personally believe there is a place
for public protests or confrontation with the powers who dominate the masses. But
these should be non-violent in nature. John the Baptist, Jesus, Gandhi, MLK
participated in non-violent demonstrations. The prophet stands up and speaks
truth to power and calls for all to repent and submit to the reign of Christ. However,
there is a price to pay. The prophet may end up imprisoned or put to death.
In Democratic nations, rallies, marches, sit-ins, etc. can
have a positive effect, drawing press coverage and publicity. They have the
potential of raising public awareness and pricking the collective conscience of
a society. In democracies Christians have certain rights of free speech,
exercise of religion, protests, etc. But what about lands dominated by tyrants,
whether ancient Rome or modern-day Yemen or China? Any Christian attempt to
protest the government’s policies will be squelched in a moment. Since James
Cone has directed his comments toward Christianity in America alone, it may not
be fair to call into question the efficacy of his “all acts” Christian strategy
in other parts of the world.
This has been a good chapter and has caused me to think
through some important issues. James H. Cone pulls no punches. He speaks his
mind. He takes the principles of Liberation Theology and applies them to an
American context. The result is “A Black Theology of Liberation.”
I will now move on to Chapter 2 and in due time offer my comments
as a Facebook post.
No comments:
Post a Comment