|
Sadly, Christians have not been fully and
properly sensitive to all of the oppressed and needy people in our
society.
Written in the early twentieth century,
The Fundamentals
were a series of twelve volumes of
articles designed to define the Christian faith against attacks,
and people who subscribed to the principles were called
fundamentalists. (The word is now often used to describe
“fundamentalist” Christians who bomb abortion clinics,
“fundamentalist” Mormons who live in strange compounds, and
“fundamentalist” Muslims who commit suicide bombings.) Of all of
the hundred articles in the series, only one touched on the church
’s responsibility in a society of need – except for those that
discuss evangelism. Have we improved on that lack of emphasis? The
church has often not even spoken to “cases extraordinary,” when it
was appropriate to have done so.
In the latter part of
the nineteenth century, harsh attacks sought to deny the authority
of the Bible. It was claimed that the Bible was based on
mythology, that Jesus was not the Son of God in any real sense,
that His role in history was as a teacher of the moral life, and
that Christians and churches were called to be an influence for
“good,” however that was defined in society. Man was thought to be
inherently good. Two world wars dispelled that view, and out of
that background arose what was called the social gospel. Its
various viewpoints challenged the Bible. Theologians, seminaries,
and their churches affirmed, for example, the following kinds of
statements:
1.
The Bible is a record of some events, with added mythological meaning that
accumulated after the events. The Gospel of John, for example,
with a much more developed doctrine of Jesus’ Deity, was written
perhaps far into the second century long after John died.
2. The
Bible does not contain propositional revelation, because there is
no such thing.
3. The
Bible is the Word of God written, in the sense that God did some
things in history, and then men recorded and interpreted the
events.
4. The Bible is not the objective Word of God. It is not the
Word of God when it is closed; it becomes the Word of God when it
speaks to me in my experience.
J. I. Packer wrote that there are three final
authorities in Christendom: Scripture, the church, and reason. He
might well have added “experience” since for many people, “what I
experience is what is true.” A focus on experience, allows
considerable freedom in interpretation and expression.
An Example of Beginning with Experience
In the 1950s and 1960s, there were a number of
Marxist movements in Latin America. They sought to gain political
and other power for the many peoples in those countries who did
not share in whatever wealth there was and had not political or
civil power.
The Roman Catholic Church was an active force
among many of these poor and deprived peoples. During this time,
bishops, priests, and some Protestant scholars developed a
Liberation Theology, which affirmed that God and Jesus were on the
side of the Marxist revolutionaries and others claiming to seek
civil rights for the masses.
While the Church at Rome affirmed the goals to
bring equity for the peoples of Latin America, it also spoke
against any alliance with godless Marxism and many of the tactics
being employed. It affirmed that priests should not personally be
involved in political affairs.
Recently. a small notice in a local newspaper bore
this title, “Former Bishop Elected President of Paraguay.” The
ruling party candidate conceded defeat, “signaling the end of six
decades of one-party rule and handing victory to former Roman
Catholic Bishop Fernando Lugo.” The article concludes, “News of
the Lugo win sent thousands of his supporters into the streets of
Asuncion in a massive celebration. Lugo, dubbed the ‘bishop of the
poor,’ has vowed to help Paraguay’s poor and indigenous.”
In the United States, this Liberation movement has
been supported by “Black Liberation Theology.” Psalm 103:6 and the
constant reminders in our news media suggest that something needs
to be said about this issue.
Before entering our brief journey into Black
Liberation Theology, a few comments seem to be necessary.
1.
I apologize to all of
you for referring to color, white or black. It grieves me that
this theological system is so racially divisive.
2.
In recent newspapers,
you have perhaps seen references to James H. Cone, a professor of
systematic theology at Union Theological Seminary in New York. He
is one of the fathers of Black Liberation Theology. I am using his
writing, particularly from the 1960s, to define this thought
system.
3.
A few comments about
currently held views. During the past month I have talked with
several people claiming to hold to Black Liberation Theology. They
are evangelical friends who do not endorse the excesses of
Professor Cone. I purposefully am only commenting about Professor
Cone at this point.
Black Liberation Theology — What It Is .
Black Liberation Theology arose in the turbulent
1960s. During that period, violent anarchy destroyed property and
fire-bombed buildings in cities like Los Angeles, Detroit, and
Newark. James Cone was the principle originator and developer of
this theology which sought to explain, even to justify, this
angry, destructive behavior.
Black Liberation Theology understood that THE
issue in God’s activity in the world was, and is, the oppression
of black people by white people, particularly in the United
States. Some oppression may be obvious, such as in denial of
voting or other civil rights; some may be more subtle, such as in
prejudicial treatment of employees.
God is seen as the God of the oppressed – and
therefore against the oppressors and their false god. Jesus is
found in the movement for liberation and freedom. Jesus came as a
liberator, and he identifies with those mobilized for liberation.
He is therefore a “black Jesus,” although blackness “has very
little to do with skin color.” If you want to find Jesus, you will
do so only among oppressed people. Cone affirmed, “God’s
self-disclosure must be found only in the person of Jesus Christ
and that Jesus can only be found in the context of liberation."i
The definition of Christ as black means that he is the
complete opposite of the values of the white culture."ii
Cone continues to say black theology excludes
other views. "There are two reasons why Black Theology is
Christian theology and possibly the only expression of Christian
theology in America.” The first is that Christian theology must
arise from an oppressed community. The second is that it is
Christ-centered – “The black community itself is where Christ is
at work.”iii
Definitions in Black Theology are different from
those of our tradition who are committed to the historic Gospel.
For example, “In America, the Holy Spirit is black people making
decisions about their togetherness, which means making
preparations for an encounter with white people.”iv
Cone said further, “This country was founded for white people, and
everything that has happened in it has emerged from the white
perspective. The Constitution is white, the Emancipation
Proclamation was white, the government is white, business is
white, the unions are white. What we need,” Cone wrote, “is the
destruction of whiteness which is the source of human misery in
the world.”v
Black Liberation Theology
Evaluating its Sources
Black Liberation Theology did not arise in a
vacuum. It did not come from “nowhere.”
The primary source is called “the black
experience.” Many of us should simply admit that we cannot
identify or even understand, “the black experience.” I spoke
recently with a woman who recalled that Ocean City’s beach was
open for her only two weeks of the year and that she was not
allowed to worship in a Roman Catholic church in Maryland. I did
not participate in “the black experience.” My ancestors were not
slaves in the United States, torn from their homelands in Africa,
subjected to degrading subhuman treatment and stature. But I offer
two objections to the use of “the black experience” as a starting
point.
First, I object to the severity of this
description. “The black experience….is the totality of black
existence in a white world where babies are tort u red, women are
raped, and men are shot.”vi I also object to the
following definition. “The black experience is the feeling one has
when he strikes against the enemy of black humanity by thro wing a
live Molotov cocktail into a white-owned building and watching it
go up in flames. We know, of course, that there is more to getting
rid of evil than burning buildings, but one must start somewhere.”vii
While some of us – no matter our color – may not
be able to identify with the black experience, we can object to
definitions that seem imbalanced and solutions to inequities that
are destructive, criminal, and wrong.
Secondly, I wonder about the appropriateness of
seeing the focus of God’s interest as being only oppressed black
people in the United States. A Christian can surely be proud of
his or her heritage and identity and can celebrate the Gospel in
various ways. Any kind of oppression is wrong. However, is God’s
interest only in the local black population, as the only oppressed
people to command His attention? What of the people of Tibet, or
the starving and beaten people of North Korea and its crushed
Christian population, or the people living in starvation camps in
Darfur, or the people of Myanmar/Burma dying of disease and hunger
because their military government will not allow supplies to reach
them, or the black and white people of Zimbabwe oppressed by
President Mugabe, or unborn babies in the United States, perhaps
the most powerless, oppressed, endangered population group?
All theology should begin with God, as the word
itself indicates.
In contrast, the beginning for Black Liberation
Theology is “the black experience.” The second source is the
experience of Israel. Peoples who endure suffering and oppression
can often find a similar experience in the history of Israel,
especially in their time as slaves in Egypt, then set free by the
intervention of God and moving toward the Promised Land.
In South Africa, for example, the first white
settlers landed at Cape Town about the same time white settlers
came to America. Fleeing persecution in Europe, they saw their
journey through the middle of what is now South Africa to the
Transvaal to be much like that of the people of Israel, free from
oppression and moving through the wilderness. More recently, the
many black Christians of South Africa have identified with the
oppressed people of Israel as they sought freedom from the
oppression of apartheid. People of both groups, white and black,
identified with Israel and the God who delivers from oppression .
Black preaching has focused – understandably – on
the work of God in delivering His people and leading them through
the wilderness. “Our experience of oppression is like Israel’s
experience,” or so it has been said.
But the experience of Israel is more than that of
a people who were oppressed and set free by God’s special
intervention and providential care. It began with the call to
Abraham. They were a chosen people, before and well beyond their
experience as an oppressed people. Through them all the nations
were to be blessed, specifically in the coming of the Messiah,
Jesus.
In A Black Theology of Liberation, Cone says much about
Israel and the pivotal role their deliverance plays as a template
for black experience. But he never mentions Abraham. He hardly
mentions that the people of Israel became the oppressors in their
new land, being told to destroy the gods and even the people of
enemies in their new land.
The people of Israel were oppressed and chosen.
Some peoples of our world are oppressed – some to the extreme,
others in subtle ways – but none of them is the chosen people as
was Israel. Selective use of Israel as a model allows subtle
movement from saying, “There are similarities between our
experience and that of Israel,” to affirming “We are God’s people,
we are the new Israel.”
Thirdly, it comes from a view of Jesus that is
based on the understanding that His work in the world today
focuses on the liberation of black people, specifically in the
United States. I have already indicated that the view that a
person holds of the Bible’s authority will be reflected in what he
or she thinks of Jesus and His ministry.
Let me frame some questions you might like to ask
James Cone. The answers are quotations – yes, taken out of context
– from his writing.
What do you think of the inerrancy of the
Bible?— “… truth is not objective. It is subjective, a
personal experience of the ultimate in the midst of degradation.”viii
Describe Jesus’ ministry. —
“Christ is not a man for all people; he is a man for
oppressed people…”ix
What is repentance?— “The appearance
of Jesus as the Black Christ also means that the Black Revolution
is God’s kingdom becoming a reality in America…. repentance has
nothing to do with morality or religious piety in the white
sense.”x
What is salvation?— “Black theology
represents an attempt of the black community to see salvation in
the light of their own earthly liberation….This is not to deny
that salvation is a future reality; but it is hope that focuses on
the present.” xi
What about efforts to help poor and unfortunate
blacks? — “Such acts are sin offerings that represent a
white way of assuring themselves that they are basically ‘good’
persons. Knowing God means being on the side of the oppressed,
becoming one with them and participating in the goal of
liberation. We must become black with God!”xii
We can understand how these statements can be
derived from a view of arising out of experience. But we do not
understand them to represent the revealed word of God concerning
the work of Jesus, nor indeed what repentance and salvation
actually are. David said, “Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight.” What David did to Uriah and
Bathsheba could not be corrected. The sin against God was on his
permanent record. We all have records like David’s. Repentance and
salvation are responses to God’s forgiving those sins and deleting
their consequences.
How Should We Respond?
First of all, be grateful that the ultimate
meaning of the cross of Jesus does not relate to an oppressed Jew
winning freedom for Israel from a Roman oppressor. It is rather
the high point in the struggle between the oppression of sin –
with all of its severe consequences – and the freedom that new
life in the risen Christ brings.
Secondly, be grateful for the revealed word of God
in the Bible. Rejoice in the promised Messiah of the Old Testament
and for the revealed Son of God in the New Testament.
However, also remember that a major focus of His
ministry was toward the suffering and the poor. He worked among
and taught about those who were oppressed, not only by sin,
sickness and death, but by landowners, Pharisees, priests, and
even tax collectors. Early in His ministry, He quoted Isaiah,
applying it to Himself, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has
sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of
sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the
year of the Lord ’s favor.” I remind us all again of Jesus’ words.
“I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the
least of these, you did not do for me.”
Pray that the Lord will give us eyes to see, ears
to hear, and hearts to respond to people who suffer pain and
deprivation of any kind. And ask for wisdom to know how to be the
Christians we claim to be in every sphere of life. Jesus summed it
up this way, “As the Father has sent me, so send I you.”
|
Third Quarter 2008 