Like many average Americans, the brouhaha swirling around Barack Obama’s church and former Pastor has prompted me to take a closer look at Black Liberation Theology. What I’ve found is disturbing at best and confirms the view that Pastor Wright’s trenchant statements are accurate representations of his church’s core beliefs. BLT is neither Christian nor, ironically, liberating, but its powerful message does appeal to multiplied thousands of Americans. Therefore, an examination of its doctrines, even in a short post, is in order.
If BLT has a birthday it is July 31, 1966. An ad hoc group of 51 black pastors, charter members of the National Committee of Negro Churchmen, took out a full page ad in the New York Times. Highlighting their “Black Power Statement,” the declaration pushed for more aggressive tactics to combat racism. In fact, much of BLT’s foundational dogma was already in existence, but the advertisement thrust these radical ideas into a broader public arena.
Liberation Theology was invented some years before amid the grinding poverty of Latin America. Proclaiming that one’s view of God and His interaction with men is determined by life experience, especially one’s economic standing, proponents of liberation theology encouraged the poor to band together and throw off the oppressor’s manacles. The exploited masses were told the God of the wealthy is quite different from the God of the downtrodden and oppressed. Moreover, because of Jesus’ affinity for the poor, Liberation Theology holds that the God of the Bible had in fact sided with the poor in their struggle for liberation. As Liberation Theology unfolded, its out-workings became indistinguishable from Marxism, class struggle being at the heart of each movement’s creed.
Black Liberation Theology borrows heavily from its older South American cousin, emphasizing an experienced-based God and class struggle. James A. Cone, perhaps BLT’s leading spokesman, wrote the following in A Black Theology of Liberation: “The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism…” In an even more startling statement, Cone asserts “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community…Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.” And again from the same work, “Black theology is concerned only with the tradition of Christianity that is usable in the black liberation struggle.”
Cone’s seminal work, Black Theology and Black Power, contains equally polarizing assertions. ”In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors…Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not.” Explaining black power, Cone writes, “What does it [black power] mean when used by its advocates? It means complete emancipation of black people from white oppression by whatever means black people deem necessary. (Emphasis in original) The methods may include…even rebellion.”
Not surprisingly, Professor Cone has a jaundiced view of whites, agreeing that “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…”
Dr. Cone “is impatient with claims that the race situation in America has improved,” according to a recent profile in The Christian Century. “Black suffering is getting worse, not better…White supremacy is so clever and evasive that we can hardly name it. It claims not to exist, even though black people are dying daily from its poison.”
America is a free country and citizens can adhere to the religion of their choice, or eschew all of them. Dr. Cone can have his druthers when it comes to tin-hat theology, but the same is not true for our president. Dr. Cone and Trinity United Church of Christ have a warm relationship, described in the same Christian Century article: “There is no denying…that a strand of radical black political theology influences Trinity. James Cone, the pioneer of black liberation theology, is a much-admired figure at Trinity…when he’s asked where his theology is institutionally embodied, he always mentions Trinity.”
This goes to the heart of what Barack Obama said, and didn’t say, in his much debated “A More Perfect Union” speech. Obama’s rejection of Pastor Wright’s “statements…that have caused such controversy” elicits as many questions as it answers. Exactly which statements did Obama condemn? “Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely,” said the Democratic front-runner. Again, which views? And more to the point, what political positions does Barack share with his pastor? If Pastor Wright did not adhere to racist, anti-American theology, these questions would be of little importance. But Reverend Wright does profess political and theological positions beyond the pale, views that are deeply offensive to Americans of all races. Senator Obama must gin up another speech and come clean about these issues. Americans have a right to know the cherished political and religious beliefs of those seeking the land’s highest office.
A president adhering to Black Liberation Theology cannot unite America and would inevitably do great harm to the country, dismantling the progress made in race relations over the past 50 years obvious to everyone but Dr. Cone. If Barack Obama is truly about change, he can prove it by changing his church affiliation. Considering Obama’s position in the black community and his personal relationship with Pastor Wright, some may view that as a tough decision. However, difficult decisions are part and parcel of the position he seeks. If he cannot do the right thing now — and leaving Trinity United Church of Christ is the right thing — he won’t be able to make the much tougher choices all presidents encounter.
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy in Race Relations