For those who think that Christianity is some kind of monolithic institution, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright has offered a counterpoint. Indeed, for those who assume that Jesus is a white guy with blue eyes, Black theology can be pretty challenging. Over the last few months I've heard and read many statements insisting that Jeremiah Wright either isn't a Christian or that Jesus wouldn't say such things. Jesus is that "meek and mild" guy, who never had a nasty thing to say about the ruling governors -- Render to Caesar, you know!
But along comes Jeremiah Wright saying some things that sound pretty incendiary and claiming that he represents the tradition of Black Liberation Theology. People hear that and can't quite get their arms around it. Jeremiah Wright had appeared some time ago on Hannity and Colmes and was trying to explain the theology developed by among others James Cone. Hannity, of course couldn't fathom such a thing. But, that's a whole different story.
What Jeremiah Wright has done -- besides causing Barack Obama considerable headaches -- is bring Black Theology out into the open. Liberation Theology, in all of its forms, whether Latin American, Feminist, Minjun, or Black Theology, insists that God has a "preferential option" for the poor and the oppressed. In other words, Jesus takes sides and the rich folk don't fare very well.
A favorite section of Scripture is Exodus -- where God through Moses tells Pharaoh to let his people -- the slaves -- go. Another story that has resonance is Mary's song in Luke:
He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly;
He has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty. (Luke 1:52-53).
Yes, according to Mary's song, God takes sides.
Michael Powell has written an excellent summation of Black Theology in a
New York Times piece (May 4, 2008). Powell puts it's origins in the difficult context of the mid 1960's, a time when the Black community was having to choose between the nonviolence of Martin Luther King and the more assertive and aggressive position of Malcom X and the Nation of Islam. As noted in the article, the question was whether Christianity was the white man's religion. James Cone sought to address this very real question and in some ways took something from both Martin and Malcolm.
As a young, black and decidedly liberal theologian, James H. Cone saw his faith imperiled.
“Christianity was seen as the white man’s religion,” he said. “I wanted to say: ‘No! The Christian Gospel is not the white man’s religion. It is a religion of liberation, a religion that says God created all people to be free.’ But I realized that for black people to be free, they must first love their blackness.”
Dr. Cone, a founding father of black liberation theology, allowed himself a chuckle. “You might say we took our Christianity from Martin and our emphasis on blackness from Malcolm,” he said.
The question now is the relevance of Black Theology. Some would say that Wright's views are old hat and no longer relevant. Barack Obama is the exemplar of the new realities. In many ways things have changed, and yet as we're seeing there remain significant pockets of racism in our society. As Cone seems to be saying, there is still a strong current within "mainstream" Christianity that assumes that Christianity is white and that to emphasize blackness is a deviation -- a necessary one in his mind.
If we are going to move on with the discussion, it seems to me that we must come to grips with the message of James Cone and others. At the same time, whatever our ethnicity or gender, economic status or sexual orientation, we must come to grips with the very present message of liberation in Scripture.
Comments