<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Good basis for Origins of Liberation Theology
Review: Cone offers a radical reexamination of Christianity from the perspective of an oppressed Black community, dealing primarily with the notion that "white" theology cannot be accepted by African Americans, unless it can be directly related to "black" freedom from oppression. "Black" and "White" do not necessarily relate to skin pigmentation but to "one's attitude and action toward the liberation of the oppressed black people from white racism". Blackness is thus "an ontological symbol for all people who participate in the liberation of man from oppression". Seen in this light, "blackness" can be attributed to people who do not have black skin but who do work for the liberation of African Americans. By contrast, "whiteness" in Cone's thought symbolizes the ethnocentric activity of "madmen sick with their own self-concept" and thus blind to that which ails them and oppresses others. Whiteness, in Cone's view, symbolizes sickness and oppression, and White theology is therefore viewed as a theological extension of that sickness and oppression. Cone emphasizes that there is a very close relationship between black theology and what has been termed "black power". Cone says that black power is a phrase that represents both black freedom and black self-determination "wherein black people no longer view themselves as without human dignity but as men, human beings with the ability to carve out their own destiny." Cone's theology asks the question, "What does the Christian gospel have to say to powerless black men whose existence is threatened daily by the insidious tentacles of white power?" He says Black Theology is derived from "...common experience among black people in America that Black Theology elevates as the supreme test of truth". To put it simply, Black Theology knows no authority more binding than the experience of oppression itself. This alone must be the ultimate authority in Black religious matters. Cone's book, A Black Theology of Liberation has been labeled as revolutionary because it claims that White theology has no relevance as Jesus Christ's message because it was "...not related to the liberation of the poor." It also asserts that "racism... is found not only in American society and its churches but particularly in the discipline in theology, affecting its nature and purpose." Cone rejects any form of Christianity that defends the oppressive status quo. He argues persuasively that the God of the Bible is first of all, a God of the poor and of those seeking freedom from oppression. Cone feels that what was needed was a "fresh start" in theology that would rise out of the black struggle for justice, and be in no way dependent upon the approval of white academics or religious leaders. Cone contends that theology grows out of the experience of the community; the community itself defines what God means. Western European theology serves the oppressors; therefore, theology for African Americans should validate the African American struggle for freedom from oppression and for justice. Cone argues that God must be on the side of oppressed Black people and presents the concept of a black God, with the words: "To say God is Creator means... I am black because God is black!" He claims that the preaching of God's Word, the teaching of God's love for mankind, love for one's neighbor, and forgiveness are spoken with a "white" interpretation. Although Cone admits that the teaching of brotherly kindness may have slightly helped his cause, he attacks the hypocrisy of white theologians who preach love, yet do nothing to ease the oppression of blacks. Cone states that the sole purpose of God in black theology is to "illuminate the black condition so that blacks can see that their liberation is the manifestation of God's activity". He reconciles the objections of some that proclaim the need of a more universal God in Black Theology; he replies that God is universal, He is Black. One of the more controversial aspects of Cone's Theology is his view that Jesus, too is black: "The `raceless' American Christ has a light skin, wavy brown hair, and sometimes - wonder of wonders - blue eyes. For whites to find him with big lips and kinky hair is as offensive as it was for the Pharisees to find him partying with tax collectors. But whether whites want to hear it or not, Christ is black... with all of the features which are so detestable to white society".
Rating:
Summary: Good basis for Origins of Liberation Theology
Review: Cone offers a radical reexamination of Christianity from the perspective of an oppressed Black community, dealing primarily with the notion that "white" theology cannot be accepted by African Americans, unless it can be directly related to "black" freedom from oppression. "Black" and "White" do not necessarily relate to skin pigmentation but to "one's attitude and action toward the liberation of the oppressed black people from white racism". Blackness is thus "an ontological symbol for all people who participate in the liberation of man from oppression". Seen in this light, "blackness" can be attributed to people who do not have black skin but who do work for the liberation of African Americans. By contrast, "whiteness" in Cone's thought symbolizes the ethnocentric activity of "madmen sick with their own self-concept" and thus blind to that which ails them and oppresses others. Whiteness, in Cone's view, symbolizes sickness and oppression, and White theology is therefore viewed as a theological extension of that sickness and oppression. Cone emphasizes that there is a very close relationship between black theology and what has been termed "black power". Cone says that black power is a phrase that represents both black freedom and black self-determination "wherein black people no longer view themselves as without human dignity but as men, human beings with the ability to carve out their own destiny." Cone's theology asks the question, "What does the Christian gospel have to say to powerless black men whose existence is threatened daily by the insidious tentacles of white power?" He says Black Theology is derived from "...common experience among black people in America that Black Theology elevates as the supreme test of truth". To put it simply, Black Theology knows no authority more binding than the experience of oppression itself. This alone must be the ultimate authority in Black religious matters. Cone's book, A Black Theology of Liberation has been labeled as revolutionary because it claims that White theology has no relevance as Jesus Christ's message because it was "...not related to the liberation of the poor." It also asserts that "racism... is found not only in American society and its churches but particularly in the discipline in theology, affecting its nature and purpose." Cone rejects any form of Christianity that defends the oppressive status quo. He argues persuasively that the God of the Bible is first of all, a God of the poor and of those seeking freedom from oppression. Cone feels that what was needed was a "fresh start" in theology that would rise out of the black struggle for justice, and be in no way dependent upon the approval of white academics or religious leaders. Cone contends that theology grows out of the experience of the community; the community itself defines what God means. Western European theology serves the oppressors; therefore, theology for African Americans should validate the African American struggle for freedom from oppression and for justice. Cone argues that God must be on the side of oppressed Black people and presents the concept of a black God, with the words: "To say God is Creator means... I am black because God is black!" He claims that the preaching of God's Word, the teaching of God's love for mankind, love for one's neighbor, and forgiveness are spoken with a "white" interpretation. Although Cone admits that the teaching of brotherly kindness may have slightly helped his cause, he attacks the hypocrisy of white theologians who preach love, yet do nothing to ease the oppression of blacks. Cone states that the sole purpose of God in black theology is to "illuminate the black condition so that blacks can see that their liberation is the manifestation of God's activity". He reconciles the objections of some that proclaim the need of a more universal God in Black Theology; he replies that God is universal, He is Black. One of the more controversial aspects of Cone's Theology is his view that Jesus, too is black: "The 'raceless' American Christ has a light skin, wavy brown hair, and sometimes - wonder of wonders - blue eyes. For whites to find him with big lips and kinky hair is as offensive as it was for the Pharisees to find him partying with tax collectors. But whether whites want to hear it or not, Christ is black... with all of the features which are so detestable to white society".
Rating: 
Summary: Hard hitting analysis of a present crises situation.
Review: This book is a "10" in it's dealing with Liberation Theology but Cone deals exclusively with the topic of liberation. Heaven, Hell, the millenium, eschatology, revelation are all ignored. For Cone, Christian Theology means nothing if it doesn't help free the oppressed in America now. The promise of a far off heaven where everything is wonderful does nothing to releive that pain that oppressed Black Americans feel today. He asks if he should stand by and watch the children suffer while telling them to be patient and wait for the promised land. Cone connects Jesus with his plight when he says that God chose to reveal himself as a poor, oppressed Jewish carpenter-not some one wealthy and powerful. He admits his own shortcomings in the preface for not dealing as effectively as he could have with women's and other minorities issues. His focus is freedom for Black America-for this he makes no apologies!
Rating:
Summary: Hard hitting analysis of a present crises situation.
Review: While being a step forward in the process towards Black Liberation, Cone is unfortunately misinformed concerning certain biblical aspects about which he speaks. For instance, he claims that God chose the Israelite people when he saw their suffering in Egypt. Based on this assumption he takes this one step forward and states that for this reason, God now identifies with the blacks, because of their oppression. However, God's covenant with Israel stretches back generations before they ever entered Egypt, and before they were ever oppressed. Cone's claim that any who dare to critique his theology are simply revealing the racist nature within themselves, is sad. Gustavo Gutierez also wrote a book of Liberation Theology, he deemed it his love letter to God, in which he denounced all sorts of corporate powers and establishments. Cone hates people, white people. Gutierez despises the institutions that have brought us to this period of hate. There is a difference here, and a difference worth noting.
Rating: 
Summary: Orgins of Black Theology
Review: Worked with this book for a group presentation on Black Liberation Theology, and it is the standard for this genre of theology. Cone was tired of theology only being looked at from an Anglo perspective. This theology tied in well with the Black Power movement of the 1960s, an offshoot of the Civil Rights movement that was tired of turning the other cheek to white oppression. This book clearly outlines how to look at the bible from the perspective of someone who has been in bondage for 400 years. While I do not hold to this view of theology, it did help me understand this viewpoint much better than before. B
Joseph Dworak
Rating:
Summary: Orgins of Black Theology
Review: Worked with this book for a group presentation on Black Liberation Theology, and it is the standard for this genre of theology. Cone was tired of theology only being looked at from an Anglo perspective. This theology tied in well with the Black Power movement of the 1960s, an offshoot of the Civil Rights movement that was tired of turning the other cheek to white oppression. This book clearly outlines how to look at the bible from the perspective of someone who has been in bondage for 400 years. While I do not hold to this view of theology, it did help me understand this viewpoint much better than before. B
Joseph Dworak
<< 1 >>
|
