A MUST READ: Black Liberaton Theology- The Marxist Root

BPR's picture

How come Obama happens to be absent from church everytime when topics come up about BLT? United Church Of Christ states BLT on the web page.

I find this interesting about BLT:

Anthony B. Bradley is a research fellow at the Acton Institute, and assistant professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis

What is Black Liberation Theology anyway? Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright catapulted black liberation theology onto a national stage, when America discovered Trinity United Church of Christ. Understanding the background of the movement might give better clarity into Wright's recent vitriolic preaching. A clear definition of black theology was first given formulation in 1969 by the National Committee of Black Church Men in the midst of the civil-rights movement:

Black theology is a theology of black liberation. It seeks to plumb the black condition in the light of God's revelation in Jesus Christ, so that the black community can see that the gospel is commensurate with the achievements of black humanity. Black theology is a theology of 'blackness.' It is the affirmation of black humanity that emancipates black people from White racism, thus providing authentic freedom for both white and black people. It affirms the humanity of white people in that it says 'No' to the encroachment of white oppression.

In the 1960s, black churches began to focus their attention beyond helping blacks cope with national racial discrimination particularly in urban areas.

The notion of "blackness" is not merely a reference to skin color, but rather is a symbol of oppression that can be applied to all persons of color who have a history of oppression (except whites, of course). So in this sense, as Wright notes, "Jesus was a poor black man" because he lived in oppression at the hands of "rich white people." The overall emphasis of Black Liberation Theology is the black struggle for liberation from various forms of "white racism" and oppression.

James Cone, the chief architect of Black Liberation Theology in his book A Black Theology of Liberation (1970), develops black theology as a system. In this new formulation, Christian theology is a theology of liberation -- "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," writes Cone. Black consciousness and the black experience of oppression orient black liberation theology -- i.e., one of victimization from white oppression.

One of the tasks of black theology, says Cone, is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in light of the experience of oppressed blacks. For Cone, no theology is Christian theology unless it arises from oppressed communities and interprets Jesus' work as that of liberation. Christian theology is understood in terms of systemic and structural relationships between two main groups: victims (the oppressed) and victimizers (oppressors). In Cone's context, writing in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the great event of Christ's liberation was freeing African Americans from the centuries-old tyranny of white racism and white oppression.

American white theology, which Cone never clearly defines, is charged with having failed to help blacks in the struggle for liberation. Black theology exists because "white religionists" failed to relate the gospel of Jesus to the pain of being black in a white racist society.

For black theologians, white Americans do not have the ability to recognize the humanity in persons of color, blacks need their own theology to affirm their identity in terms of a reality that is anti-black -- “blackness” stands for all victims of white oppression. "White theology," when formed in isolation from the black experience, becomes a theology of white oppressors, serving as divine sanction from criminal acts committed against blacks. Cone argues that even those white theologians who try to connect theology to black suffering rarely utter a word that is relevant to the black experience in America. White theology is not Christian theology at all. There is but one guiding principle of black theology: an unqualified commitment to the black community as that community seeks to define its existence in the light of God's liberating work in the world.

As such, black theology is a survival theology because it helps blacks navigate white dominance in American culture. In Cone's view, whites consider blacks animals, outside of the realm of humanity, and attempted to destroy black identity through racial assimilation and integration programs--as if blacks have no legitimate existence apart from whiteness. Black theology is the theological expression of a people deprived of social and political power. God is not the God of white religion but the God of black existence. In Cone's understanding, truth is not objective but subjective -- a personal experience of the Ultimate in the midst of degradation.

The echoes of Cone's theology bleed through the now infamous, anti-Hilary excerpt by Rev. Wright. Clinton is among the oppressing class ("rich white people") and is incapable of understanding oppression ("ain't never been called a n-gg-r") but Jesus knows what it was like because he was "a poor black man" oppressed by "rich white people." While Black Liberation Theology is not main stream in most black churches, many pastors in Wright's generation are burdened by Cone's categories which laid the foundation for many to embrace Marxism and a distorted self-image of the perpetual "victim."

Black Liberation Theology as Marxist Victimology
Black Liberation Theology actually encourages a victim mentality among blacks. John McWhorters' book Losing the Race, will be helpful here. Victimology, says McWhorter, is the adoption of victimhood as the core of one's identity -- for example, like one who suffers through living in "a country and who lived in a culture controlled by rich white people." It is a subconscious, culturally inherited affirmation that life for blacks in America has been in the past and will be in the future a life of being victimized by the oppression of whites. In today's terms, it is the conviction that, 40 years after the Civil Rights Act, conditions for blacks have not substantially changed. As Wright intimates, for example, scores of black men regularly get passed over by cab drivers.

Reducing black identity to "victimhood" distorts the reality of true progress. For example, was Obama a victim of widespread racial oppression at the hand of "rich white people" before graduating from Columbia University, Harvard Law School magna cum laude, or after he acquired his estimated net worth of $1.3 million? How did "rich white people" keep Obama from succeeding? If Obama is the model of an oppressed black man, I want to be oppressed next! With my graduate school debt my net worth is literally negative $52,659.

The overall result, says McWhorter, is that "the remnants of discrimination hold an obsessive indignant fascination that allows only passing acknowledgement of any signs of progress." Jeremiah Wright, infused with victimology, wielded self-righteous indignation in the service of exposing the inadequacies Hilary Clinton's world of "rich white people." The perpetual creation of a racial identity born out of self-loathing and anxiety often spends more time inventing reasons to cry racism than working toward changing social mores, and often inhibits movement toward reconciliation and positive mobility.

McWhorter articulates three main objections to victimology: First, victimology condones weakness in failure. Victimology tacitly stamps approval on failure, lack of effort, and criminality. Behaviors and patterns that are self-destructive are often approved of as cultural or presented as unpreventable consequences from previous systemic patterns. Black Liberation theologians are clear on this point: "People are poor because they are victims of others," says Dr. Dwight Hopkins, a Black Liberation theologian teaching at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Second, victimology hampers progress because, from the outset, it focuses attention on obstacles. For example, in Black liberation Theology, the focus is on the impediment of black freedom in light of the Goliath of white racism.

Third, victimology keeps racism alive because many whites are constantly painted as racist with no evidence provided. Racism charges create a context for backlash and resentment fueling new attitudes among whites not previously held or articulated, and creates "separatism" -- a suspension of moral judgment in the name of racial solidarity. Does Jeremiah Wright foster separatism or racial unity and reconciliation?

For Black Liberation theologians, Sunday is uniquely tied to redefining their sense of being human within a context of marginalization. "Black people who have been humiliated and oppressed by the structures of White society six days of the week gather together each Sunday morning in order to experience another definition of their humanity," says James Cone in his book Speaking the Truth (1999).

Many black theologians believe that both racism and socio-economic oppression continue to augment the fragmentation between whites and blacks. Historically speaking, it makes sense that black theologians would struggle with conceptualizing social justice and the problem of evil as it relates to the history of colonialism and slavery in the Americas.

Is Black Liberation Theology helping? Wright's liberation theology has stirred up resentment, backlash, Obama defections, separatism, white guilt, caricature, and offense. Preaching to a congregation of middle-class blacks about their victim identity invites a distorted view of reality, fosters nihilism, and divides rather than unites.

Black Liberation Is Marxist Liberation
One of the pillars of Obama's home church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is "economic parity." On the website, Trinity claims that God is not pleased with "America's economic mal-distribution." Among all of controversial comments by Jeremiah Wright, the idea of massive wealth redistribution is the most alarming. The code language "economic parity" and references to "mal-distribution" is nothing more than channeling the twisted economic views of Karl Marx. Black Liberation theologians have explicitly stated a preference for Marxism as an ethical framework for the black church because Marxist thought is predicated on a system of oppressor class (whites) versus victim class (blacks).

Black Liberation theologians James Cone and Cornel West have worked diligently to embed Marxist thought into the black church since the 1970s. For Cone, Marxism best addressed remedies to the condition of blacks as victims of white oppression. In For My People, Cone explains that "the Christian faith does not possess in its nature the means for analyzing the structure of capitalism. Marxism as a tool of social analysis can disclose the gap between appearance and reality, and thereby help Christians to see how things really are."

In God of the Oppressed, Cone said that Marx's chief contribution is "his disclosure of the ideological character of bourgeois thought, indicating the connections between the 'ruling material force of society' and the 'ruling intellectual' force." Marx's thought is useful and attractive to Cone because it allows black theologians to critique racism in America on the basis of power and revolution.

For Cone, integrating Marx into black theology helps theologians see just how much social perceptions determine theological questions and conclusions. Moreover, these questions and answers are "largely a reflection of the material condition of a given society."

In 1979, Cornel West offered a critical integration of Marxism and black theology in his essay, "Black Theology and Marxist Thought" because of the shared human experience of oppressed peoples as victims. West sees a strong correlation between black theology and Marxist thought because "both focus on the plight of the exploited, oppressed and degraded peoples of the world, their relative powerlessness and possible empowerment." This common focus prompts West to call for "a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers" -- a dialogue that centers on the possibility of "mutually arrived-at political action."

In his book Prophesy Deliverance, West believes that by working together, Marxists and black theologians can spearhead much-needed social change for those who are victims of oppression. He appreciates Marxism for its "notions of class struggle, social contradictions, historical specificity, and dialectical developments in history" that explain the role of power and wealth in bourgeois capitalist societies. A common perspective among Marxist thinkers is that bourgeois capitalism creates and perpetuates ruling-class domination -- which, for black theologians in America, means the domination and victimization of blacks by whites. America has been over run by "White racism within mainstream establishment churches and religious agencies," writes West.

Perhaps it is the Marxism imbedded in Obama's attendance at Trinity Church that should raise red flags. "Economic parity" and "distribution" language implies things like government-coerced wealth redistribution, perpetual minimum wage increases, government subsidized health care for all, and the like. One of the priorities listed on Obama's campaign website reads, "Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers."

Black Liberation Theology, originally intended to help the black community, may have actually hurt many blacks by promoting racial tension, victimology, and Marxism which ultimately leads to more oppression. As the failed "War on Poverty" has exposed, the best way to keep the blacks perpetually enslaved to government as "daddy" is to preach victimology, Marxism, and to seduce blacks into thinking that upward mobility is someone else's responsibility in a free society.

BPR's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
BPR's picture
Submitted by BPR on Fri, 04/11/2008 - 8:42am.

I want to let you know we caught the end of America Idol and this was a great surprise! I love this song.

click this is a great song

We sing this song at church. They did a great job.

_______________________________
We Will Stand


sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Thu, 04/10/2008 - 10:08am.

I have an urgent question for you, BPR.

Now, as a Scripture based Southern Baptist, you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.

I'm very concerned about Muddle and his wife. They are both going out to dinner to eat lobster for their anniversary.

The Bible is VERY clear about this: Eating shellfish is an ABOMINATION.

From your favorite book in the Bible, Leviticus:
Leviticus chapter 11, verses 9 through 12
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Since Mr. and Mrs. Muddle appear to be willingly participating in an ABOMINATION, and seem to be completely unrepentant about their ABOMINATION, does this mean those two are going to HELL?

Please advise.

Thankee kindly, and God Bless!
Sniffles


Submitted by Hey on Thu, 04/10/2008 - 11:27am.

I know you asked BPR, but....
This is what the New Testament says about eating.

Matthew 15:11 (NIV)
11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

Romans 14:1-23 (NIV)
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "[a] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[b] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

sdg's picture
Submitted by sdg on Thu, 04/10/2008 - 10:15am.

Since Muddle is the one you are seemly worried about, why not pose the question to him?


sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Thu, 04/10/2008 - 10:24am.

Actually, I was looking for a Southern Baptist judgement here.

Since Beeps is quick to pass judgement, I figured she'd be the natural one to ask!


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Thu, 04/10/2008 - 11:09am.

As for Mrs. Muddle and me, we are throwing caution to the wind.

Better to have lobstered and lost than never to have lobstered at all.

On that Great Day of Final Reckoning, as we are sailing through the air, missiles streaking towards the lake of fire, we'll remember garlic and butter on butterflied, grilled lobster and think to ourselves, "But it was worth it. Oh, yes, it was worth it!"

Did I mention the cold India Pale Ale on the side? That, too, is sufficient for finding our digs in the 9th ring.


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Thu, 04/10/2008 - 11:54am.

In all seriousness, though, while I am (happily) no theologian, I do know that biblical theologians typically (and plausibly, I think) make a distinction among the old testament laws (you know, all that Levitican stuff) between moral laws that are universal in application, and more specific ritual laws that were specific to the historical and cultural context in which they were made. So, "Thou shalt not bear false witness" or "Thou shalt not commit adultery" were never regarded as being on a par with "Thou shalt hop of thy left foot before approaching the altar" (which, of course, I just made up because I'm too lazy right now to come up with actual examples of the rather odd laws one finds).

I've seen several attempts at explanation on the dietary prohibitions of the old testament, including the one on things like lobster (which I habitually pronounc--as "yobster" as in "I yove yobster"--after my four-year-old grandaughter). Some (implausibly, I think) attempt to link it all to God's omniscient understanding of cardiovascular health and the like.

The more likely explanation from a theological perspective, to my mind, is that the various (veryweird to us) prohibitions were intended to emphasize the notion of the separateness and holiness of the people of Israel. Here, the idea would be to emphasize a prescribed way of life that ranges over all aspects of human existence and that is brought within the plan of God for Israel.

Of course, the New Testament offers an entirely different perspective. The gentiles were to be "grafted in" to God's original plan, and this was emphasized and highlighted with a vision to Peter (at the house of Cornelius) that involved former "unclean" foods. ("Arise, Peter, kill and eat.")

Note that, though Peter and Paul (and Mary?) might well have dined on something like lobster (accompanied by a fine wine, courtesy of the Master), the New Testament perspective STILL does not countenance the prospect of homosexuality. Indeed, the prohibition in Romans chapter 1 could not be stronger.

Perhaps, then, biblical perspective classes homosexuality with adultery rather than with the prohibition against eating yobster while hopping on one foot.


Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Thu, 04/10/2008 - 3:08pm.

There are a lot of reasons why the book of Leviticus have these rules for eating such foods.

The Question is if such rules and regulations were Inspired words from the mouth of God, or were they merely adopted from the societial mores i.e. old wives tales that recognized that people that ate pork and lobster often died from them, (because they were not cooked appropriately). Therefore, these facts became "Universal and God given truths" to the illerate masses. I mean, the Rabbi says to eat pork or lobster is wrong, because God said so, pffth! But hey, Hobbstein's entire family either died or got real sick after their weekend barbeque. Hmmmm. A truth passed down from God, or a scientific fact learned from generations of outdoor BBQ's?

All interesting subjects to discuss, albeit, not here, but on fayetteforums.com where we can get down and dirty in the unclean ways of man.

It would be fun!


sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Thu, 04/10/2008 - 12:54pm.


Thank you for the insight...I am glad to know that your soul is not immediately forfeit due to your uncontrollable lust for lobster. I figured there had to be some sort of Biblical loophole, given the popularity of lobster and bacon.

In any event, if we were held to Levitican standards nowadays, you'd have been hellbound the moment you put on your first cotton/polyster disco shirt (clothing fibers sin) when you began pitchin' woo at Mrs. Muddle those many years ago.

But I digress.

I've seen many discussions on the "Heirarchy of Sin", largely from my fundie brethren, and I am not sure I am convinced of any "right" approach. I've seen

    1. "Jesus' coming negated Leviticus",
    2. "Old vs. New Testament conflicts: tie goes to the New",
    3. "Sin is SIN. Period. No one sin is worse than another. God said so!"
    4. "Ten commandmants = Sinning First Class. Everything else = Sinning second class".
    5. "False Idol commandmant trumps all other and cannot be excused by salvation by definition.

As you can see, the proper categorization of sin is all over the Biblical map.


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Thu, 04/10/2008 - 2:50pm.

Yes. Celebrate diversity!

I cannot claim any expertise here.

The best that I can suggest is that the tradition is perhaps more "textured" than what might be supposed. And so, I think it not implausible that one ought to regard the different sorts of prohibitions (e.g., lobster versus adultery) on different levels.

When the New Testament suggests that a woman should keep her head covered, we need not (I think) suppose that it is assuming that there is something *inherently* wrong with an exposed female head. More likely, there was a cultural context in which a social statement was made by the way a woman appeared in public. Possibly, in a given culture, a way of appearing in public is widely understood as a public statement of moral identity or the like. (Similarly, any given word is merely a sound made as the result of humans forcing air past palate, tongue and lips. The meanings of those sounds depend upon the cultural milieu in which they are uttered. No word is inherently vulgar or respectable.) And so I think there is some reason, up front, for suspecting that some commandments have to do with the inherent moral properties of actions and others have to do with extrinsic considerations.

The bottom line is that the contemporary criticism of Christian opposition to gay marriage, a criticism that observes the (odd) prohibitions of the old testament in conjucntion with the prohibition against homosexuality, might simply be insensitive to the fine texture of the biblical perspective.

AGain, I am out on a limb here. I do not spend my days poring over scriptural passages and thinking about such issues. But, on the face of it, it seems to me that such a reply may be available to those in the know.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.